EU Resettlement Framework
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government have decided not to opt in to the EU proposal for a regulation establishing a common European Union resettlement framework.
Under the proposed EU resettlement framework, the total number of people to be resettled to the EU in a given year and the countries to be resettled from would be decided by the Council following a proposal from the Commission and set out in annual Union resettlement plans. The framework would also establish certain common elements for the resettlement process, including: rules on admission, including eligibility criteria and exclusion grounds; the standard procedures governing all stages of the resettlement process; the status to be accorded to resettled people; and, the decision-making procedures for implementing the framework.
The UK is of the view that resettlement schemes are best operated at the national level. This allows for greater control and flexibility over both the source countries to be resettled from and the resettlement process. The Government are of the view that the stated reasons for action at EU-level, such as alleviating pressures on countries hosting a disproportionate number of displaced individuals, gaining influence in policy dialogues with third countries, and improving the resettlement process, can equally be achieved through close co-operation between international partners operating national resettlement schemes. National schemes also allow resettlement efforts to be aligned with the domestic and international priorities of individual member states, including maintaining full control over the numbers to be resettled.
The UK has committed to resettling 20,000 Syrians to the UK under our Syrian vulnerable person’s resettlement scheme (VPRS), and 3,000 vulnerable children and their families to the UK under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme, by the end of this Parliament. In the year ending September 2016, 4,162 people were resettled under the Syrian VPRS, across 175 different local authorities. These commitments are in addition to our longstanding gateway protection programme and mandate resettlement scheme.
Until the UK leaves the EU, it remains a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s right to opt in to forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting our civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.
[HCWS486]
Immigration
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government take the welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children extremely seriously, and the UK has a proud history of providing protection for those in need, including some of the most vulnerable children affected by the migration crisis. The Government’s strategy is to support international efforts to find a comprehensive and sustainable solution to the refugee crisis; we must deal with its root causes, as well as respond to the consequences. That is why the UK has been at the forefront of the response to the events in Syria and the region, pledging over £2.3 billion in aid—our largest ever humanitarian response to a single crisis. We are also one of the few EU countries to meet our commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid.
We have a comprehensive approach to tackling these issues both at home and overseas. By the end of this Parliament, we will have resettled 20,000 Syrian nationals through our Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and a further 3,000 of the most vulnerable children and their families from the middle east and north Africa region under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme. We also received over 33,000 asylum claims in the UK last year.
The number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children arriving in the UK has risen over the last few years, including in response to this Government’s commitment to the transfer of hundreds of children from Calais and to address the humanitarian needs of the most vulnerable children. The UK has contributed significantly to hosting, supporting and protecting the most vulnerable children affected by the migration crisis. In the year ending September 2016, the UK granted asylum or another form of leave to over 8,000 children. This includes those who claimed asylum in the UK, those who were brought to the UK through our resettlement schemes, those transferred from within Europe, and those granted a refugee family reunion visa.
In 2016, we transferred over 900 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to the UK from Europe. This included more than 750 from France as part of the UK’s support for the Calais camp clearance. Over 200 of those children met the published criteria for section 67 of the Immigration Act. The remainder were transferred under an accelerated process based on the family reunion criteria of the Dublin regulation. This was a one-off process, based on the principles of the Dublin framework but operated outside of it, and was implemented in response to the unique circumstances of the Calais camp clearance. All children not transferred to the UK are in the care of the French authorities.
The UK can be proud of its record of helping refugee children and I can today announce, in accordance with section 67 of the Immigration Act, that the Government will transfer the specified number of 350 children pursuant to that section, who reasonably meet the intention and spirit behind the provision. This number includes over 200 children already transferred under section 67 from France. It does not include children transferred to UK where they have close family here. We will announce in due course the basis on which further children will be transferred from Europe to the UK under section 67 of the Immigration Act to the specified number.
As required by the legislation, we have consulted with local authorities on their capacity to care for and support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children before arriving at this number. Local authorities told us they have capacity for around 400 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children until the end of this financial year. We estimate that at least 50 of the family reunion cases transferred from France as part of the Calais clearance will require a local authority placement in cases where the family reunion does not work out. We are grateful for the way in which local authorities have stepped up to provide places for those arriving and we will continue to work closely to address capacity needs.
The Government will continue to meet our obligations under the Dublin regulation and accept responsibility for processing asylum claims where the UK is determined to be the responsible member state, ensuring that it is in their best interests to come here. We are working closely with European partners to ensure the timely and efficient operation of the Dublin regulation.
Of the over 4,400 individuals resettled through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme so far, around half are children and last year we welcomed the first families to the UK under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme. We are fully committed to an effective response in the affected regions and to resettling the most vulnerable directly from those regions. Within Europe, the UK has also established a £10 million refugee children’s fund to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe. The fund includes targeted support to meet the specific needs of unaccompanied and separated children.
Here in the UK, we have launched the national transfer scheme to ensure a fairer distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children across England and ease pressure on the children’s services of those local authorities with large numbers of unaccompanied children. To implement the national transfer scheme the Home Office has established a dedicated team to process the transfer of children quickly while at the same time acting in accordance with the child’s best interests. The Home Office also published detailed guidance for local authorities setting out the processes involved in transferring unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from one local authority to another, including the need to ensure that the scheme is driven by the welfare of the child.
As announced on 1 November, the Government will also deliver a safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. This will ensure the Government put in place a comprehensive safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children living in or being transferred or resettled to the UK.
To further support the transfer arrangements and underline our commitment to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the Government significantly increased the funding they provide to local authorities who look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Local authorities now receive £41,610 per annum for each unaccompanied asylum-seeking child aged under 16 and £33,215 per annum for unaccompanied asylum-seeking child aged 16 and 17. This represents a 20% and 28% increase in funding respectively. In addition, the Government went further and also increased the funding they provide to local authorities for those young people who turn 18 and go on to attract leaving care support by 33%. These significant increases in Government funding will have a very positive impact on local authorities’ ability to care for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The Government have also announced the £140 million controlling migration fund in England, which is intended to cover a broad range of costs associated with migration. It cannot duplicate or top up unaccompanied asylum-seeking children rates, but it may support short-term costs not included in the mainstream unaccompanied asylum-seeking children grant and costs related to family reunion cases. This could include costs such as the safeguarding assessments, recruitment campaigns for social workers or support workers, specialist counselling or training on the specific needs of unaccompanied children. Additional funding has also been offered to strategic migration partnerships across the UK to help them bolster local structures and ensure they are equipped to deal with the diverse needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The Government have taken significant steps to improve an already comprehensive approach to supporting asylum-seeking and refugee children. This latest announcement provides further evidence of the Government’s commitment to playing its part in the global migration crisis. In addition to the tens of thousands of children in conflict regions and in Europe that are benefiting from UK aid and development assistance, we are providing protection to thousands of children in the UK each year.
The UK should be proud of its overall contribution.
[HCWS467]
Immigration Rules: Spouses and Partners
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will come to the disproportionate impact of the threshold in just a moment.
When those two rules are combined, astonishingly almost half the UK population would be excluded from ever being able to sponsor the person they love to come and join them, if that person happened to be from outside the EU. As the hon. Gentleman just said, there are disproportionate impacts on some segments of the population, for fairly obvious reasons related to average incomes, so even higher proportions of young people, women and some ethnic minorities, and essentially all those who live outside London and the south-east, are affected.
Tens of thousands of adults have been forced by the Government to choose between the country that is their home and that they love and the people who they want to share their home with and who they love even more. That is a horrible and cruel choice. What is the Government’s justification for that? The official Government position is that it serves to protect the public purse and encourage integration. The first of those is of dubious accuracy and questionable relevance. The second I fail completely to understand at all, so I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say if he wants to maintain that argument. I simply note that it was comprehensively rebutted in a report for the Children’s Commissioner that I will consider shortly.
On the public purse issue, the Government claimed that the requirement would save £660 million over 10 years —it would be good to know if they are doing up-to-date research on that—but Middlesex University has persuasively argued that the coalition Government, who introduced the rules, did not take into account the loss of the wider economic benefits of migrant partners’ economic activity. In fact, its model suggested a cost to the taxpayer over that period of £850 million.
Needless to say, the Government did not accept that analysis and pressed ahead, fixing a threshold at the level that the Migration Advisory Committee said would be the annual gross pay required for a couple at which they would not receive income-related benefits, assuming weekly rent of £100. I am not criticising the MAC, which functions like a finely tuned, high-spec computer performing some amazing analysis. However, as with such a computer, the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” applies: if a half-baked question is asked, a half-baked answer is given.
As the MAC pointed out, its deliberations were based purely on economic considerations and did not take into account wider legal, social or moral issues related to family migration. That was absolutely correct. Of course, in implementing its recommendation, the Government did not think to factor in that even if £18,600 was the right threshold, both halves of the marriage or partnership should be allowed to contribute to meeting it, not just the UK sponsor. A talented non-EU national could have a job offer—they might even have worked in the UK in the past under a different visa—yet they cannot join their spouse or partner here if their UK spouse or partner is, agonisingly, just a few hundred pounds short of the income threshold. That makes absolutely no sense.
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I, too, pay tribute to the MAC for its work. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the MAC recommended a range between £18,600 and £25,700 and that, given that range, the Government chose the lowest figure they could?
Stuart C. McDonald
It is true the Government chose the lesser of two evils, but I go back to the point I made before: it all depended on the question that the Government asked of MAC, which dictated the answer that came back. They could have looked at a million different alternatives. For example, in some litigation before the courts, reference has been made to the minimum wage, which is considerably less than £18,600. In my view, there was nothing wrong with the threshold previously in place, which was broadly £5,500—a rate that equated to income support at that time. There is even a case for removing the financial threshold altogether. So, yes, the Government chose the lesser of two evils, but that was from the question they asked in the first place.
The all-party parliamentary group on migration rightly pointed out that there will be many cases where the separation of parents leads to increased reliance on social security benefits. All of that is largely hypothetical anyway, since as we all know the non-EU spouse is prohibited from accessing social security benefits in any event for five years.
Ultimately, we should not engage in a balance-sheet debate that excludes from consideration family life and the best interests of children. We are talking about people—husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters—whose lives are being absolutely ruined. I have no doubt that colleagues will raise many constituency cases today, and each of them is absolutely deserving of our attention.
Ms Abbott
Exactly. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing how the demonstration corresponds with this morning’s debate. The issue is not just that they are seeking to tighten immigration rules in the United States, but the harshness, the unfairness and the arbitrary way of how it has been done. These maintenance funds requirements are another example of harshness and unfairness, and of not thinking through how the changes would operate in practice. I have no hesitation in saying that this policy and these maintenance funds requirements are impractical, unjust and counterproductive.
As other Members have reminded us, this issue is still before the courts. This is not just a question of Opposition MPs making all sorts of aspersions on Government policy. In July 2013 the High Court did not actually strike down the rules as unlawful in general, but did find that the way they are applied amounts to a disproportionate interference with family life in certain cases. Several Members have raised the issue of the interference of these rules in family life. In July 2014 the Court of Appeal allowed the Government’s appeal against the High Court decision. In May 2015 the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision; it heard the appeal last year and is yet to hand down judgment.
We might think that, faced with court rulings saying that these maintenance funds requirements have a disproportionate effect on family life, any Government concerned about supporting family life might step back and review their operation. When all is said and done, however we define a husband and wife and however we define a family, strong families are one of the building blocks of our society. Whatever their concern about what the tabloid press says about immigrants on any given day, no Government should wilfully pursue policies that have the detrimental effect on family life that these maintenance requirements do.
Like many Members who have spoken, I deal with the practical consequences of these rules every week in my advice sessions. As we all appreciate, I have the difficult task of trying to explain to distraught husbands or wives that these rules exist and that because of someone’s country of origin, they face this arbitrary hindrance on family reunion. In June 2013, as other Members have mentioned, a report by the all-party group on migration called for an independent review of the requirement and its impact. The Government have yet to respond to that demand.
As we know, the policy requires non-European economic area visa applicants to have available funds equivalent to a minimum gross annual income of £18,600. It is inherently discriminatory because it requires a higher income threshold in cases that include non-EEA children. It is also discriminatory because in many cases only the British and settled visa sponsors’ employment income can be considered. It discriminates against women because their incomes tend to be lower, and effectively encourages family and partnership break up. As other Members have said, the Migration Observatory found that 28% of non-EEA men and 57% of non-EEA women did not meet the threshold. Consequently, the policy hits some ethnic groups harder than others, notably Pakistani and Bangladeshi applicants.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Will she say what the official Labour party policy is on this issue? Would she reduce that figure or would she abandon it altogether?
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), and indeed the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), on securing the debate. I intend to leave some time for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to conclude.
I will seek to respond to the points that hon. Members have made. We welcome people who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, to work hard and to make a contribution. However, family life should not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and all migrants, including those who are joining family, must be able to integrate into our communities.
The immigration rules for spouses and other partners were strengthened in the last Parliament. They have three aims. First, they tackle abuse. The minimum probationary period before partners can apply for settlement is now five years rather than two, which is a better test of the genuineness of the relationship. It deters applications based on sham marriages and the criminals who seek to profit from them.
Secondly, the rules promote integration. The minimum income threshold for sponsoring a partner ensures that they can take part in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society. Being able to speak English is also essential and helps migrants to participate in the community and find work. That is why the rules require a partner to be able to speak basic English, at level A1, before they can come here, and to speak intermediate English, at level B1, and to pass the “Life in the UK” test before they can qualify for settlement.
Ms Abbott
We all share the Government’s concern that people should be able to speak English. However, if the Government are really concerned, why have they cut funding for English as a second language? Why have they cut the funding available to local authorities that were helping to provide that English training, often in the context of schools or other institutions?
Mr Goodwill
People have to get an English qualification at level A1 in their country before they come here. I represented Yorkshire in the European Parliament, and having represented many of the communities there, I know the disadvantage that many children face when they start school—perhaps second or third-generation English-born children—if they do not speak English as their first language. Having that ability in English is absolutely vital not only for the integration of spouses, but for enabling children to progress in life. That is why we set these levels and why, from 1 May 2017, we are introducing a new English language requirement for partners applying for further leave after two and a half years in the UK on a five-year route to settlement. That will require them to progress to A2 level from the A1 level required on entry.
Thirdly, the rules seek to prevent burdens on the taxpayer. That is achieved through the minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor a partner to come or remain here, with higher thresholds for also sponsoring dependent, non-EEA national children. It is right that those wishing to establish their family life here must be able to stand on their own feet financially. That is the basis for sustainable family immigration and for good integration outcomes.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister argues that migrants coming here should stand on their own two feet, so why will he not take into account their potential earnings when they go out of their way to show that that is exactly what they intend to do?
Mr Goodwill
That point was raised in the debate, including by the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). Employment income from the migrant partner will not count towards a minimum income threshold. We will not take into account the previous, current or prospective earnings, or any job offer of the migrant partner, when they apply for entry clearance to come to the UK. Employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK. Partners coming to the UK with an appropriate job offer can apply under tier 2 of the points-based system. Those using the family route to come to the UK must be capable of being independently supported by their sponsor or by their joint savings or non-employment income. When a migrant partner is in the UK with permission to work, we will take their earnings from employment here into account.
As I was saying about the rules relating to the £18,600 threshold, it is right that those wishing to establish their life here can stand on their own feet financially. The previous requirement for “adequate” maintenance meant that any sponsor earning, after tax and housing costs had been deducted, more than the equivalent of income support for a couple—around £5,700 a year—was deemed to have sufficient funds to sponsor a partner. That was not an adequate basis for sustainable family integration and provided little assurance that couples could support themselves over the long term. That is why the minimum income threshold for sponsoring family migrants was introduced as part of the reforms of the family immigration rules implemented in July 2012.
Simon Danczuk
The Minister made the point that he has represented parts of northern England. Does he not accept that the threshold discriminates against people in the north of England, such as those in Rochdale and other towns and cities?
Mr Goodwill
I am coming to precisely that point. We have heard the Migration Advisory Committee described in glowing terms in this debate, and I pay tribute to the work it does and the analysis it undertakes before reaching its conclusions. Its report, published in November 2011, recommended that the threshold for a couple should be set between £18,600, the level at which a couple settled in the UK generally ceases to be able to access income-related benefits, and £25,700, the level at which the sponsor becomes a net contributor to the public finances by paying more in tax than they consume in public services. The lower figure of £18,600 was chosen, partly because of the points made about incomes being lower in other parts of the country.
Jim Shannon
I suggest respectfully and gently to the Minister that we need to consider regional variations in relation to that figure. In my contribution I referred to myself and those I know in Scotland. The threshold should fall to £15,000. I think that that is the figure we should consider for regional variations; it would adequately enable people to live in my constituency and across Northern Ireland.
Mr Goodwill
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The provisional annual survey of hours and earnings data shows that gross median earnings among all employees in 2016 were £23,099 for the UK as a whole, but they exceeded £18,600 in every country and region of the UK—in Scotland the figure was £22,918, and in Ulster it was £20,953. Incidentally, for Yorkshire and the Humber, my own region, the figure was £21,235.
That income threshold, and the higher thresholds if children are sponsored, means that the family will generally be unable to access income-related benefits once the partner and any children qualify for settlement and thereby gain full access to the welfare system. That is a fair basis for family immigration that is right for migrants, local communities and the UK as a whole.
The Migration Advisory Committee also considered the case for setting a different level of income threshold by country and region of the UK. It noted, for example, that a requirement that varied by region could lead to sponsors moving to a lower threshold area in order to meet the requirement before returning after a visa was granted, and that a family living in a wealthy part of a relatively poor region could be subject to a lower income requirement than a family living in a deprived area of a relatively wealthy region. The MAC could therefore see no clear case for differentiation in the level of the minimum income threshold between UK countries and regions, and the Government agree. A single national threshold also provides clarity and simplicity for applicants, sponsors and caseworkers.
Anne McLaughlin
Surely the Minister understands that, regardless of what average earnings are, we get to the average by having lots of people who earn more and lots of people who earn less. What about the people who earn less and will never be in a position to reach £18,600? Why should their husband or wife not be able to come and live with them here, in the country of which they are a citizen?
Mr Goodwill
Basically, the argument behind it, to which the Migration Advisory Committee also subscribed, was that there should not be a burden on the taxpayer. The levels have been set so that people will not be liable to claim benefits. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), speaking from the Labour Front Bench, discussed challenges in court, as did other Members. The Government’s position on this issue has been supported all the way through the courts, which is why we are now at the Supreme Court, the last point of appeal.
I will touch on one or two points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Inverclyde mentioned third-party support. Promises of financial support from family and other third parties cannot be counted against the minimum income threshold. We want the couple to demonstrate that they can stand on their own feet financially, with adequate resources that are under their own control and not somebody else’s. Promises of support from a third party are vulnerable to a change in another person’s circumstances or in the sponsor or applicant’s relationship with them.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde also raised the issue of fees. Income from application fees helps provide the resources necessary to operate the immigration system, with the remainder currently provided through general taxation. In the recent spending review, the Home Office set out its objective to work towards a border, immigration and citizenship system that is fully user-funded by 2019-20. The recent fee increase reflects this objective. Fees are set above cost recovery to reflect the administrative cost of processing an application and the benefits arising to those granted leave. It is right that fees are charged directly to users of the immigration system who benefit directly from the services provided.
Simon Danczuk
The Minister is doing an exceptionally good job of reading out the policy, but does he accept from all the examples given by various Members of Parliament and many others who deal with such applications that the system does not work and continually falls over for individual constituents?
Mr Goodwill
I am certainly more than happy to become personally involved if there are cases where we have not applied the rules correctly. Sometimes we make mistakes—sometimes documents are lost in transmission, for example. I know that the civil servants working in the Home Office who provide support to MPs are assiduous in ensuring that any mistakes that we make are quickly rectified and that the people involved are not put at a disadvantage.
Anne McLaughlin
I mentioned Christine, my constituent, who is now unable to meet the minimum income threshold because both of her elderly parents are sick and she is their carer. She is saving this country thousands of pounds. Probably the correct rules were applied, so I am asking the Minister not to do what he has offered to do—intervene when the rules have been applied incorrectly—but to consider making an exception in the case of Christine, who could do with her husband being here and who has selflessly given up the potential to earn enough money in order to look after her parents. Will he consider looking into her case and making an exception?
Mr Goodwill
I will certainly consider the case, and I would welcome a meeting with the hon. Lady so that she can explain it in more detail.
Under the rules, the income from employment of the UK-based sponsor can be counted in one of two ways. The person must show either that they have received the level of annual income relied on from employment held for at least six months at the date of application, or that they are currently in employment earning that level of annual income and have earned that amount from all employment undertaken in the previous 12 months. That provides some flexibility for those who change employment. It also gives us some assurance that the person is qualified for and can hold down employment at the level of income relied on. We otherwise risk being presented with applications based on earnings that do not accurately reflect the employment capacity of the person concerned. In order to maintain the integrity of the system for all applicants and sponsors, we need rules in place to prevent that.
The rules also take into account a wide range of other sources of income for the couple and their cash savings. Since July 2012, many changes have been made to the rules to enable more sources of income and savings to be counted and to introduce more flexibility on the required evidence. For example, cash savings, which otherwise must be held for at least six months prior to the date of application to help show that they are under the couple’s control, can now include proceeds from the sale, within that six-month period, of a property or investments owned by them.
The rules do not take into account the employment prospects of the migrant partner or a job offer to them, as I mentioned; employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK. However, when they get here, they can contribute to the family income and meet the rules in that way. The couple can rely on accommodation provided by a third party. The minimum income threshold reflects average rent, so that the couple can be expected to make their own arrangements later if need be. The immigration rules for spouses and partners have been upheld as lawful by the courts.
I was looking forward to hearing what the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson would have to say on behalf of the official Opposition. I had rather hoped that she would fill some of the vacuum that seems to be Labour’s immigration policy at the moment. She talked a lot about US immigration policy and criticised our policy, but she failed miserably to propose concrete alternatives that would be operable and maintain our wish to counter those who seek to exploit the UK with sham marriages. Hopefully things will become clear at some point between now and the next election.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution, I asked the Minister a question, which I think I saw him take note of, about those who are applying to come to the United Kingdom. Can their income in the countries they work in be part of the equation? I ask him to look at that and, if necessary, come back to me and to all hon. Members present with an answer in writing.
Mr Goodwill
I am happy to have another look at that rule but, as I have already mentioned, the fact that a person has a job abroad is no guarantee of employment here in the UK. However, if that person arrives in the UK and works, their income contributes to the family income and will be taken into account.
We continue to keep the immigration rules for spouses and partners and their impact under review. There were 28,443 partner visas granted in the year ending September 2016—a decrease of 26% from the 38,355 partner visas granted in the year ending September 2010. Our overall assessment is that the current rules are having the right impact and are helping to restore public confidence in the immigration system. I am grateful to have had the chance to hear the views of hon. Members on these issues.
Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2017
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. The immigration health charge was introduced in April 2015, and is paid by non-European economic area temporary migrants who apply either for a visa for more than six months or to extend their stay in the UK for a further limited period. The charge, which is set at a competitive level of £200 per annum per person and at a discounted rate of £150 for students and youth mobility scheme applicants, ensures that migrants contribute to the national health service in a manner commensurate with their immigration status, subject to limited exceptions.
Those who pay the charge receive NHS care in the same way as permanent residents do, subject to the same clinical need and waiting times, for as long as their leave remains valid. That means that they pay only those charges that a UK resident would pay, such as for dentistry, and for prescriptions in England.
In its first year of operation, the immigration health charge collected £164 million for spending on the NHS, of which £140.1 million was made available for spending in 2015-16. The remainder, as a result of agreed accounting arrangements, will be made available to the NHS in the 2016-17 supplementary estimates process. The Home Office has transferred, through the main estimates, a further £120 million so far this financial year for spending on the NHS, and is expected to make a further transfer of income to the NHS in the 2016-17 supplementary estimates process. Income from the charge is shared between the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, using the formula devised by Lord Barnett, and spent as those bodies see fit.
The draft order amends the principal order—the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015—in response to the findings of two separate reviews. The first of these was conducted by the independent Migration Advisory Committee, which for brevity I will refer to as the MAC. In 2015, the MAC was commissioned to provide advice on a number of potential changes to tier 2. As part of the review, it was also asked to consider the case for applying the health charge to users of the tier 2 intra-company transfer route, which is the route for employees of multinational employers who are transferred to the UK either to take up a role that cannot be filled by a UK recruit or for training purposes. It is the only route within tier 2 and, indeed, within the entire points-based system, that is exempt from the health charge.
Although partners to the review pointed out that a large proportion of intra-company transferees might be in receipt of private healthcare, the MAC noted that they have access to the NHS, whether they use it or not. Indeed, there might be instances when they need recourse to the NHS, for example for GP referrals or in an emergency. The MAC also noted that contributions to a universal service are not made on the basis of whether an individual makes use of that service and that, for example, UK residents can opt for private healthcare without paying less tax to reflect their lower use of the NHS. The MAC therefore concluded that it could not see a good reason why intra-company transferees should be exempt from payment, and recommended that the group pay the health charge in line with other users of the tier 2 route. The recommendation was accepted by the Government, and the draft order amends the principal order to that effect.
I reassure the Committee that the Government have considered carefully the impact of applying the health charge to intra-company transferees. The increased cost to the group is small, relative to their expected income over the duration of their stay in the UK. Short-term staff, for example, must earn at least £30,000 per year and long-term staff at least £41,500. From April, all staff will be required to be paid the minimum of £41,500; as such, any impact on the route is expected to be negligible.
The second review discharged a commitment that the Government made during the passage of the principal order to review the operation of the health charge six months after implementation. It was an internal review that examined performance between April and October 2015 and considered areas for improvement. Internal and external partners across Government were consulted and contributed to the review. Its outcome was published in a letter to the Home Affairs Committee on 24 January. The review found that, overall, the health charge had been implemented successfully, but it recommended a number of technical changes to the principal order to strengthen its provisions.
First, it is the Government’s position that victims of modern slavery should not pay the health charge. The charge is waived in those cases—where the victim was not trafficked; under the order, victims of trafficking are exempt from the charge. However, the review recommended that, rather than a waiver, an explicit exemption should be set out on the principal order. The draft order amends schedule 2 of the principal order so that all victims of modern slavery, whether trafficked or not, applying for leave under modern slavery policies fall under an explicit exemption. I am personally very pleased to see this explicit exemption, which further underlines this Government’s commitment to combating modern slavery.
Secondly, the draft order amends schedule 2 of the principal order to make it clear that those applying for further leave to remain as a visitor are exempt from the charge. This is a minor clarifying amendment that does not change the status quo. The Government have been quite clear from the outset that applications for visitor visas do not attract the health charge.
Thirdly, article 2 of the draft order amends article 6 of the principal order to ensure that migrants granted temporary leave following a reconsideration of their application or an otherwise successful challenge to a refusal of leave must pay the charge when requested to do so. Article 2 of the draft order also amends article 6 of the principal order to make it clear that those granted an additional period of leave on appeal must also pay a health charge for that additional period. These amendments are in line with the Government’s general policy that temporary migrants should make a proportionate contribution to the NHS through payment of the charge, irrespective of the process by which leave is granted.
Finally, to provide certainty for those migrants whose applications are already in train, article 4 provides for transitional arrangements. The amendments introduced through this draft order will not apply to an immigration application submitted to the Home Office before the order comes into force.
In conclusion, the Government believe that it is only right and fair that migrants, including intra-company transferees, contribute to the extensive, high-quality NHS services available to them during their stay, in line with their temporary immigration status. We estimate that by applying the health charge to this group of migrants, an additional £136 million to £205 million, in 2016-17 prices and at present value, could be raised for the NHS over 10 years.
The other provisions in the draft order are technical but necessary, in so far as they provide greater clarity on the Government’s position or seek to strengthen the wording of the principal order in line with Government policy. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr Goodwill
I am pleased that we have had a short debate on this matter, and I appreciate the Committee’s general support. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington made some interesting comments about health tourism. No doubt hospitals are encouraged to be more robust in the way that they reclaim costs, but that is not a matter for the Home Office, nor indeed for this Committee; the Department of Health would lead on that. I welcome the support of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and the rather more grudging support, dare I say it, from the Scottish National party.
The hon. Lady also tempted me to speculate on what these sorts of NHS charges will be, post Brexit. I can only reassure her that the Prime Minister has been clear on the Government’s ambition to get the best deal for Britain in the Brexit negotiations. The Department of Health is supporting the Department for Exiting the European Union in negotiating the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom.
Finally, on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford makes, the tier 2 visas and intra-company transfers are for a limited period. The premium, if you can describe it as that, paid at the beginning covers that period. The question of whether to apply for another visa would up to the company, but with intra-company transfers, it is generally the intention that the person would return to the part of the company in the country from which they came. If my hon. Friend has a specific case that he would like to raise with me, I will certainly look into it to ensure that we are delivering the healthcare that people would expect—not only the healthcare that we are legally obliged to deliver, but that which is within the spirit of the NHS. All applications are considered on their merits and in accordance with the immigration rules. In the context of the health surcharge, the visa should be refused only if the charge was not paid, not on the basis of the applicant’s health. That gives a degree of clarification.
This has been a helpful debate on an important subject, and I hope that I have addressed the key issues raised, building on the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, who set the ball rolling. The immigration health charge is helping the NHS to remain sustainable for future generations, while the low charge ensures that the UK remains the destination of choice for the brightest and best migrants. On that basis, I commend the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Migration Advisory Committee: Shortage Occupation List
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The independent Migration Advisory Committee has today published its partial review of the shortage occupation list relating to teachers. A copy can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/migration-advisory-committee. I am grateful to the Committee for its thorough and detailed study.
The Committee has recommended that maths and physics teachers remain on the shortage occupation list; that computer science, Mandarin and science teachers should be added to the list; and that chemistry teachers should be removed from it.
The Government have accepted the Committee’s recommendations in full and the necessary changes will be made to the immigration rules to reflect this.
The Government are committed to reducing net migration to sustainable levels, which means the tens of thousands. That means we need to need to look first to the resident labour market to fill vacancies. The Department for Education is spending over £1.3 billion up to 2020 to attract new teachers into the profession. This includes continuing to offer generous bursaries of up to £30,000 tax free in priority subjects and a £67 million investment in STEM teaching in England to recruit up to 2,500 additional maths and physics teachers, and increase the skills of up to 15,000 existing teachers over the course of this Parliament.
However, we recognise there may be a need to recruit overseas where we continue to have genuine skill shortages or require highly specialist experts. We adjust the shortage occupation list from time to time and in line with the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations to ensure that, where necessary, labour can be sourced from outside the European economic area.
[HCWS437]
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government recognise that international students make an important contribution during their time here and help to make our education system one of the best in the world. We are in regular contact with the sector, and there is no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come here to study in the UK.
Christina Rees
International students bring academic and cultural benefits to our universities, contribute billions of pounds to the economy, support the creation of tens of thousands of jobs and enable these institutions to innovate, build links with businesses and invest even more in every student in every region and country of the UK. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have no plans to reduce the number of international students coming to every UK university, and tell us what steps they will take to increase numbers?
Mr Goodwill
I agree with the hon. Lady absolutely. As I mentioned, there is no limit on the number of students who can come here. Since 2010, we have seen a 17% increase in the number of university applications from outside the EU, while the Russell Group has seen an amazing 47% increase.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The whole House knows that it is vital to maintain our global reputation as an open and fair place to study, but in mid-December last year the Home Office lost a major test case against international students. The Home Office claimed that the students had made bogus claims about English language skills. What were the total legal costs in this test case against Sharif Majumder? How many other cases were initiated and had to be dropped? What estimate has been made of the potential liability arising from students who were deported on the basis of evidence-free claims, but might now have a right to sue for wrongful deportation?
Mr Goodwill
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Lady has the brass neck to refer to bogus students in bogus colleges. We had to take away the sponsorship licence from 920 colleges that were recruiting students to take bogus courses. I will certainly get back to her in writing if I can provide some of the information she asked for specifically on that legal case.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Long-term migration statistics are produced by the independent Office for National Statistics. The most recent figures estimate that in the year ending June 2016, 113,000 non-EU nationals came to the UK to study; in that same year, 45,000 non-EU nationals who were former students left. For EU nationals, the corresponding figures are 34,000 and 18,000 respectively.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I accept that students are classified as immigrants internationally, but when the immigration figures are published, would it not be a good idea to state how many of the people in the figures are students bringing money to this country?
Mr Goodwill
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that these statistics are produced and presented by the ONS, and that figures for students are clearly identified separately within those statistics.
Mr Speaker
On this immigration-related matter, I would call the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) if he were standing, but if he does not stand, I will not.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Mr Goodwill
It is certainly very important for family reunification, particularly for spouses, that rules are in place to ensure that these people are not a burden on the taxpayer. Indeed, the levels set are such that if there were a separate figure for Scotland, it would be higher, given that average incomes in Scotland are higher than those in the UK overall.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
In 2016, we transferred more than 900 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to the UK from Europe, including more than 750 from France as part of the UK’s support for the Calais camp clearance. Following consultation with local authorities, I remind the House that the Government will transfer “a specified number” of children, in accordance with section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, who reasonably meet the intention and spirit of the provision. This will include more than 200 children already transferred from France. We will announce in due course the basis on which the remaining places will be filled, including from Greece and Italy, and the final number.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
This afternoon we have been talking about police funding in the abstract, but there is also a human cost to policing. This weekend in the Crumlin Road area of north Belfast, a police officer was shot and badly wounded. Will the Home Secretary please pass on to Chief Constable George Hamilton the unqualified support of the whole House for the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and our deepest sympathy to the friends and family of the police officer who was shot this weekend, who has not been named?
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
My constituent Eann McInnes has twice tried to get his family to visit Scotland from Morocco while they sort out their visa arrangements, but twice the Home Office has frustrated the process, stating:
“The right to a family life could be enjoyed in Morocco, and does not necessarily have to be in the UK”.
However, my constituent has a genetic disorder that can be treated only in the UK. Will the Minister commit to looking into this case again, and will he meet me to work out how the family can be reunited so that they can live together?
Mr Goodwill
I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that specific case and to see what can be done.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service aware of the stark warning that was given to his predecessor by the chief constable of Cumbria, Jerry Graham, about the failure of the previous funding formula to take into account
“the cost premium for the sparsity, rurality and geographical isolation of Cumbria”?
Will the Minister meet all Cumbria’s MPs to discuss this important issue before his new proposals come out?
EU Asylum Reform Package
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for setting out her Committee’s position very clearly. That was very helpful in setting the context.
In relation to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I understand that the premature approval of the four measures last week was due to a mistake, possibly made in this building, not in the Home Office, but I take full responsibility for the fact that we had to exercise our opt-out before we had this debate. I make it clear, as Mr Evans did, that I will be listening carefully to the arguments that are made, although on this issue I would have to hear arguments stronger than any other argument that I have heard in this place to change my view on these four proposals. However, as the Committee will know, we did opt into some of the proposals in this field—in particular, the Eurodac regulation, which is helpful in terms of sharing fingerprint and biometric data.
The Government are not deploying delaying tactics on these measures, but I note the Committee’s concerns regarding the timing of the debate. Unfortunately, there is sometimes pressure to debate Government business, which means that opt-in debates cannot be scheduled as quickly as we would like.
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending these important measures for debate. The four measures under consideration—the asylum procedures and qualification regulations, which are two separate regulations, the reform of the reception conditions directive, and the Union resettlement framework regulation—represent the second wave of a package of proposals to reform the common European asylum system, or CEAS. The European Commission put forward a wide-ranging package of reforms to CEAS in a communication published in April. The House has already debated the Dublin IV, Eurodac and EU agency for asylum measures in the first wave of the Commission’s proposed reforms.
The Government have already decided not to opt into the four measures being considered today. I apologise again to the Committee for the fact that it has not had a chance to debate the proposal before the opt-in deadline, although I suspect that few would argue with the wisdom of not doing so, particularly in the light of Brexit.
The new proposals on qualification, asylum procedures and reception conditions reform the package of asylum directives that was adopted between 2011 and 2013 as part of the second phase of CEAS. In relation to the asylum measures, as hon. Members are probably aware, the UK did not participate in the directives of 2011 and 2013 owing to concerns about the limits that that would place on our national system. We remain bound by the first phase of CEAS directives from 2003 and 2005.
The qualification and asylum procedures proposals reflect a shift by the Commission from setting standards for asylum procedure and criteria in a directive, which permits member states some flexibility in transposing the provisions into national law, to a regulation, which limits member states’ ability to set their own national rules in accordance with national interests. That would be a substantial change for the UK, given that we did not participate in the directives of 2011 and 2013.
However, the migration crisis has highlighted the challenges presented by large-scale secondary movements, and I welcome the proposals’ overarching aim of discouraging abuse and secondary movements. The Government are and remain committed to running a high-quality asylum service. However, elements of the proposals under consideration differ from UK practice—for example, in relation to both the duration of leave to be granted to beneficiaries of international protection, and access to the labour market. I would not wish to limit the flexibility of the United Kingdom system in those areas by agreeing to the provisions set out by the European Union. Furthermore, should we wish to align ourselves with the EU on those matters in future, we could do so through domestic legislation.
It is clearly necessary to develop a European asylum and migration framework that controls illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents unwarranted secondary movement. However, that does not mean that the Government agree with all the Commission’s suggested policy options. Although we respect the fact that our European partners may wish to pursue greater commonality in their asylum systems, we remain of the view that the functioning of national asylum systems is a sovereign issue. I see no reason to change our approach from that taken for the second phase of these directives, and we have therefore decided not to opt in.
On the proposed Union resettlement framework regulation, the Government have been clear that we consider resettlement schemes to be best operated at the national level. We are of the view that the stated reasons for action at an EU level, such as alleviating pressures on countries hosting a disproportionate number of refugees, gaining influence in policy dialogues with third countries or improving the resettlement process, can equally be achieved through close co-operation between international partners operating national resettlement schemes. National schemes also allow resettlement efforts to be aligned with the domestic and international priorities of individual member states. For those reasons, the Government have decided not to opt in to the measures.
The Chair
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief. Subject to my discretion, it is open to a Member to ask related supplementary questions.
Mr Goodwill
The usual channels are particularly in the frame for this one—although it was not spotted by those who otherwise spot these things.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, even if that pleasure is slightly tempered by the fact that the debate may well serve no purpose. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister one question: can one draw any understanding of the Government’s negotiating position on Brexit from decisions on opt-ins—or not opting in? As those negotiations proceed, is this something that we will see guiding our policy in the areas in which we may seek further commonality with the European Union?
Mr Goodwill
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Although I am reluctant to disagree with him on the Committee’s not serving a purpose, I have to say that what is said here could cause the Government to opt into the measure at a later date. However, I rather suspect that the debate will stiffen my view that we have made the right decision.
My hon. Friend tempts me into the area of Brexit negotiations. I suspect you might pull me up were I persuaded to go into that area, Mr Evans. All these matters are under consideration. As I said in my opening remarks, we feel that they are best determined at a national level, which is even more important as we approach the era in which we are no longer members of the European Union.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. Going back to the points of order raised at the beginning of proceedings, will the Minister explain why we are debating the measures not only after the proverbial horse has bolted, but after the deadline for opting in? I appreciate that the former may be owing to human error, but the latter treats Parliament with a fair dose of contempt.
Mr Goodwill
I have already tendered my apology for the matter having been decided before it could be debated. Indeed, I mentioned the logjam of measures that are coming forward and the pressure on parliamentary business in some cases. I repeat my unreserved apology for this not having been brought forward sooner, but no colleague has raised with me a concern that we have made the wrong decision. I hope that the debate and the questions will give Committee members the opportunity to explore other aspects of the four measures before us.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans—for the first time, I think. Given that some funding has already been allocated, will there be a financial loss to the UK from not opting into the resettlement proposals?
Mr Goodwill
We do not expect any funding that has already been agreed to be affected by our not opting into the regulation. The UK has already been allocated funding from the asylum, migration and integration fund through to the financial year 2019. In any event, the UK may have left the European Union before the regulation comes into effect. No EU funding has been allocated to the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme, which is our primary way of delivering our obligations for resettlement, since the scheme’s expansion.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The Minister has made it clear a couple of times that he does not think he will change his views, but will listen none the less. He emphasised that his view was that, on these matters, we should be sovereign, and that his Government would not wish to opt in, and he asked for retrospective agreement again. We also have the matter of premature approval and a logjam to deal with. Even though we have not finished this debate, he seems confident that he will not change his views. How can we hold the Government to account if this is how the procedures and systems work?
Mr Goodwill
I repeat my apology, but I would certainly be interested to learn, perhaps from a supplementary question from the Scottish National party, whether it believes that we should have opted into any of the four measures.
We in this House have the power to pass legislation, so even if we do not opt into measures, we can take our own approach to some of them. Indeed, looking at our successful roll-out of the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement scheme and the other schemes in the area, as well as our long-standing gateway and mandate scheme, I believe that we are stepping up to the mark with our responsibilities. EU legislation would not add anything in that regard.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the Minister for his apology. I think he has made the right decision, albeit in the wrong way. I note that the Government are doing considerably better than the last Government, and very considerably better than the coalition Government, in bringing forward debates in European Committees, though I think one debate is still outstanding from a recommendation in January 2013. Although that is not satisfactory, the situation is not as bad as it has been.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend will know that the treaty of Lisbon says a lot about giving national Parliaments more power and more say over these things. It is yet to be made apparent how that will be rolled out across the European Union. In the meantime, this Parliament remains sovereign in the UK, and after Brexit we will have even more sovereignty to exercise on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Has the Minister considered whether there are any negative implications of not opting in?
Mr Goodwill
Obviously, we continue to observe a watching brief. Should the Government, at any time, decide to opt in, that will be possible, although time is limited, given the Brexit negotiations. I continue to work closely with other member states, particularly those that are under pressure, such as France, Italy and Greece. The application of these four measures will not impact on the priorities of this Government or, indeed, this House. The timetable for final agreement may well be protracted, and we may well have left the European Union before the measures take effect.
Kate Green
Further to that response, are there any aspects of the proposals that the Minister would wish to adopt into UK domestic law, or legislate for in UK domestic law after Brexit?
Mr Goodwill
We already have a number of measures on the statute book that address how we deal with asylum seekers, and how we approach the tremendous need, particularly in the areas around Syria, to bring people here. We are using the Syrian vulnerable peoples scheme, and the other scheme bringing 3,000 children and their families from the wider middle east. I see no reason to opt into these measures. The freedom that not opting in gives us means more options and opportunities to step up to the mark and meet our international obligations.
The Chair
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11316/16 and Addendum, a Proposal for a Regulation 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 and amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country nationals who are long term residents; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11317/16 and Addenda 1 to 2, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11313/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a Union Resettlement Framework amending Regulation (EU) No. 516/2014; further takes note of European Union Document No. 11318/16, a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast); endorses the Government's decision not to opt in to the above proposals under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; notes that the Government is able to opt-in post-adoption; and supports the Government's intention to continue to support other Member States on asylum matters.—(Mr Goodwill.)
Mr Goodwill
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. Irrespective of the opt-in decision under discussion, we remain committed to addressing the migration crisis and working with the EU and member states to tackle this high-priority issue.
The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, the shadow Home Secretary, talked about “waves” of migration. When discussing these issues, one needs to bear in mind what pull factors can lead those “waves”. Indeed, many of the people who find themselves in unseaworthy boats, either in the Aegean sea or in the Mediterranean, are responding to pull factors that can result in the people traffickers being able to carry out their particularly horrible business.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right when she refers to the most vulnerable people. Having visited refugee camps in Jordan, I would say that the most vulnerable people are those in the camps—indeed, the people in the berm on the Syrian border—and not necessarily those people in Greece, Italy and France, which are safe countries.
As a former Member of the European Parliament, I believe that the United Kingdom post-Brexit will still be in the European family; it is just that we will no longer be sleeping in the spare bedroom. Indeed, the UK will be able to take a lead in Europe and will not necessarily be limited by the speed of the slowest, which is all too often the problem in getting agreement at European level.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am very curious about how he thinks we will be able to lead the way when we are out there on our own. Also, does he agree that the way to have influence with third countries, which would be an important part of the solution to this appalling global crisis, would be to act in concert with our European neighbours?
Mr Goodwill
I would be more inclined to take lessons from our EU friends and colleagues if they all stepped up to the mark, as we have done by spending 0.7% of our income on overseas aid. We are the second biggest donor to the region around Syria—£2.3 billion of aid is going in. That shows that we put our money where our mouth is and do not just talk about making that commitment.
Kate Green
Does the Minister agree that our European neighbours might be more impressed if we took refugees and asylum seekers on the same scale as Germany, which has taken several hundred thousand, or Greece and Italy, which are forced to deal with being the point of arrival for many people, and are unable to cope with that?
Mr Goodwill
We are taking refugees from the region under the two schemes that we have put in place, as well as the long-standing scheme. That does not contribute to the pull factor that results in people traffickers carrying out their business, and indeed, sadly, in fatalities and people meeting a watery grave in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The policy followed by some of our European allies has been absolutely disastrous. The British Government are the one Government who have got it right: they are helping in the region, rather than encouraging people to take extraordinarily dangerous journeys. The Government really deserve to be supported in that.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend, as so often, is absolutely right. Let us not forget that the UK remains one of the largest member state contributors to Greece’s efforts to implement the EU-Turkey agreement. We offered 75 personnel initially and a further 40 this month. The UK has deployed a Border Force search-and-rescue cutter to the Aegean and contributed assets to the NATO mission, including the HMS Mersey, an offshore patrol vessel. We contributed £2 million to the assisted voluntary return project through the International Organisation for Migration office in Greece from January 2014 to 2016. The UK has allocated up to £34 million to the humanitarian response in Greece, including £8 million to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, £11.5 million to the Start non-governmental organisations, more than £1 million to the IOM, and more than £1.8 million of essential supplies, including more than 3,100 tents for more than 15,600 people, 60,000 blankets, 8,000 sleeping bags, 8,000 sleeping mats, and other basic items. I do not call that not standing up for people in need. We have contributed vessels and resources to Italy to support efforts in the central Mediterranean, including a chartered Border Force vessel as part of Frontex’s Operation Triton, and one officer in the Rome maritime rescue co-ordination centre. The UK has also directly supported the German Government with returns.
The Government recognise that there are problems with elements of CEAS, as has been highlighted by the migration crisis. It is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. However, that does not mean that the Government agree with all the Commission’s suggested policy options, or indeed that they are in the UK’s national interest.
I recognise that there are positive elements in these proposals, but not opting in means that we can retain the flexibility and sovereignty of the UK system and provides the UK with greater scope to continue tackling abuse of that system. The SNP raised the point that the new asylum procedure regulation would provide applicants with a right to a personal interview during the asylum process. That conflicts with current UK practice, which provides for an interview to be omitted when an application is made merely to frustrate a removal decision.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Minister said that he thought some elements of the proposals that we have opted out of were positive. Will he indicate which, and how the UK will be able to take those positive opportunities in the future?
Mr Goodwill
I have already said that our failure to opt in does not obviate the possibility that we can participate in some of the schemes. I have already mentioned what we are doing in Italy and Greece. The recent operation following the clearance of the Calais camps shows that we have been able to deliver on that.
Let me give another example of the implications of not opting into the proposal. On the reception conditions directive, the Commission proposes reducing the time limit for access to the labour market from nine to six months. In the UK, asylum seekers are allowed to work only if their claim has been outstanding for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. The Government policy on access to the labour market also provides permission to work only in jobs on the shortage occupation list published by the Home Office.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, we already participate in various schemes, including the Dublin III process, under which large numbers of people have been brought to the UK. The Government are providing more than £70 million in response to the wider Mediterranean refugee crisis. The UK has also established a £10 million refugee children fund to support the needs of vulnerable refugee and migrant children arriving in Europe.
The UK has also, as I have mentioned, committed to resettling 20,000 Syrians—we are on track to do that by the end of the Parliament—as well as 3,000 vulnerable children and family members by 2020, in addition to our gateway and mandate schemes. We already share best practice with member states through resettlement schemes.
The proposals under consideration today are still being negotiated. Previous iterations have been subject to extensive negotiation. The Government will continue to monitor the negotiations and consider areas of convergence and divergence. It is, however, the Government’s position that it is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. This does not mean that the Government agree with all the policy options that the Commission suggests, or that they are right for the UK. The opt-in decisions were made fully in line with the national interest.
Question put and agreed to.
European Union Opt In Decision: EU Agency for Asylum
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government have decided not to opt in to the EU proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Asylum.
On 4 May the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Asylum and repealing regulation (EU) NO 439/2010. The proposed European Union Agency for Asylum would replace the existing European Asylum Support Office (EASO). The UK currently participates in EASO.
The aim of the proposal is an agency with more powers to promote the implementation and improve the functioning of the Common European Asylum System. The proposal provides the European Union Agency for Asylum with a significant degree of oversight over national asylum systems.
We are committed to running a high quality and effective asylum system but have always taken the view that the functioning of the asylum system is a sovereign matter.
The UK will therefore not opt in to the proposal for the EU Agency for Asylum.
[HCWS373]
European Union Opt in Decision: EU Readmission Agreement with Nigeria
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government have decided not to opt in to a Council Decision (11975/16/16) authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the European Union and Nigeria on readmission.
EU readmission agreements (EURAs) ensure reciprocal procedures for the identification, documentation and return of persons illegally entering or remaining in EU member states, or the third country. We decide whether to participate in EURAs on a case-by-case basis, depending on the priority we attach to the country concerned in terms of numbers of immigration returns and the degree to which we enjoy a good bilateral relationship with that country.
In terms of returns co-operation, the UK already has bilateral arrangements with Nigeria via a memorandum of understanding, which work well, for example allowing the return of Nigerian nationals who have an expired passport. In 2015, there were 599 enforced removals to Nigeria and 1,361 voluntary removals.
We would not envisage an operational advantage if we were to change our current bilateral arrangements for conducting returns to Nigeria.
[HCWS369]
European Union Opt In Decision: Residence Permits (Third Country Nationals)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government have decided not to opt in to the draft Council regulation amending the regulation on the uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals. The proposed regulation is intended to update the 2002 regulation, which was previously amended in 2008. The draft measure seeks to update the design and security features on the current version of the residence permit.
In reaching its decision, although the Government welcome measures that will strengthen immigration and border control, it has taken account of the cost of developing a document that the UK may never use. The UK will continue issuing the current format of the residence permit until we leave the EU and we are considering the options following exit.
[HCWS372]