Universal Credit and Child Tax Credit: Two-child Limit

Debate between Rupa Huq and Alison Thewliss

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will talk about some of Refuge’s evidence later, because it is stark and the Government should take heed of it.

A social security safety net ought to be there for everybody—each one of us—when they need it, but by April 2018, the two-child limit had already affected 73,530 households. Well over half of those households—43,420 of them—were in work, so I will not have it if the Minister, or anybody else on the Tory Benches, which I note are remarkably empty, gives us the old Tory trope that the policy is about people on benefits making the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work. The benefit is designed to give people in the lowest-paid work a top-up, to help support them and to make sure that their children are fed and clothed.

Of those 73,530 households, 2,900 were able to keep their entitlement for a third child by claiming an exemption to the policy. There are largely three exemptions to the two-child limit. None of them is entirely logical, and I would recommend that hon. Members check out the Child Poverty Action Group’s page on the exemptions to see how mind-bendingly arcane they are.

The first exemption is the rape clause. I put on record again my absolute disgust at a policy that forces women to fill out a form to say that they have conceived their third child as a result of rape. It is absolutely inexcusable as a policy. For someone to have to put their child’s name on a form and say that they were conceived as a result of rape is beyond contempt, and the Government should know better than to treat women in that way. We know from the figures that, up until April, 190 women across the UK claimed under that exemption. That is 190 women who have had to replay the most traumatic experience of their life to put food on the table. The Government should hang their head in shame.

The second exemption is for twins, but it is not as simple as it ought to be. It applies if twins are born after a single birth, but not before. If someone has twins after two previous children, only one twin is eligible for payment, but both those twins need to eat. There may be two almost identical families with three children—one that had twins and then a single birth, and one that had a single birth and then twins—but only one is worthy of support from the Government, which is completely illogical.

The third exemption is for adoption, but not if someone has adopted from abroad or if they were a step-parent before they adopted the third child, so that is not simple either. An additional exemption has been made for kinship care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who successfully campaigned for that on behalf of her constituent Alyssa Vessey, who lost an entitlement for her own child after taking on caring responsibilities for her three younger siblings. The clear result of the policy and the exemptions is discrimination. Families may have similar circumstances and needs, but some will lose out simply due to the order in which their children were born—something that those children certainly have no control over.

I understand that CPAG will be back in court on the issue before Christmas, and I wish it the very best with its case. It believes, and I agree, that the two-child limit breaches articles 8 and 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is also beyond me how the limit could possibly be compliant with the UK Government’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child.

There will also be an impact on blended families and families who may be encouraged to separate to avoid being hit by the limit. A friend also pointed out that women who have children from previous relationships will be caught should they wish to have a child with a new partner, which is very common, whereas the male partner may be able to go off and start a new family more easily without having the children with him.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Is it not depressing that we have debated this issue two Tuesdays in a row? I thank the hon. Lady for coming to the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families. She talked about blended families, which will be hit hardest. The Government abolished the cross-departmental work on child poverty; they are trying to abolish these things, but they have really mismatched priorities. The churches have been very vocal about it, and the Bishop of Oxford spoke last week. Does she have any comment about that?

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree, and I commend the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their work in the all-party parliamentary group on single parent families, because those families will be hugely hit by this. It provides huge disincentives for those families to go into work or to progress. It simply puts them further into poverty and makes it harder for them to get out of that poverty.

Immigration Rules: Paragraph 322(5)

Debate between Rupa Huq and Alison Thewliss

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. If there were a case to answer, HMRC would have something to say about it.

This issue affects not just those individuals. Last week, I spoke to Saleem Dadabhoy, who employs 20 people in his business. If his situation is not resolved, all those people will be made unemployed and a British company worth £1.5 million will be wound up. That is economic madness, and the Home Office should carefully consider the impact of its target-driven culture on the economy, especially in these uncertain times.

I have spoken to many highly skilled migrants, all of whom have been distressed about the way they have been treated, having given the best years of their lives to the UK and made their home here. We should thank that group, not put them out.



My constituent, Omer Khitab, travelled to the UK on a study visa in 2006 and completed a master’s course in international marketing at the University of the West of Scotland in 2009. He then worked in journalism and marketing before starting his own business. His accountants completed his tax return on his behalf, and the errors they made inadvertently were rectified by my constituent a few months later. Omer has written documents from his accountants to prove that, and accepting full responsibility for the errors.

Omer also suffers from depression and anxiety, a factor that his GP and his psychiatrist have acknowledged would, without doubt, contribute to his inability to spot an administrative error in his tax return. His stress is only worsened by the ongoing nature of his case. He said:

“I feel this is my home, I thought my children will grow up here, I will get married and die here. That letter saying I don’t belong to this place, I am a threat to national security, it’s very hard to swallow”.

It is hard for all of us to swallow.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, given the association of that rule with terrorism provisions, the implications are wide ranging and can leave a black mark on people’s lives forever? It is difficult for them ever to get a visa or to work anywhere worldwide after all that.

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. That is why there needs to be a proper and thorough inquiry into the use of the provision. If Home Office staff are being advised to use it as a means of refusing people, they are clearly not looking at the full implications or the possible long-term impact.

My constituent Omer was refused leave to remain on the basis that he had deceived the Department, which goes entirely against all the evidence that he provided. Furthermore, HMRC has written to Omer to say that its staff are satisfied that he has acted honestly and not tried to deceive anyone.

Mustafa Ali Baig also travelled to the UK to study in 2006. He obtained master’s degree in international marketing from the University of the West of Scotland in 2009. Mustafa and Omer have a lovely picture of the two of them graduated—two young boys with all their lives ahead of them, and Omer certainly is almost unrecognisable from that picture, given the stress he has been under lately.

Before coming to the UK, Mustafa obtained a bachelor of law degree at the University of the Punjab, and he has master’s degree in political science. He has worked in business development, marketing and public relations, and has undertaken voluntary positions for civil rights and social action groups. He also volunteers to run a current affairs radio show. He is very much part of the Glasgow community, and he has gone above and beyond to advocate for his friends.

As far as I am aware, there is no question as to Mustafa’s integrity, but, due to that immigration rule, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) has just pointed out, he has been told that he is a questionable character and a threat to national security—as a result of correcting a small error on his tax return in 2010. That is no basis on which to remove someone in such a way. His case goes to the immigration tribunal on 20 June—that proves that decisions on such cases are still being made, despite what the Home Secretary has said.

Mr Sanjeev Pande travelled to the UK in 2005 on a student visa and graduated from Glasgow University in 2008. He started his own IT business and was also employed as an IT consultant and project manager—a lucrative career. Most recently, he had been leading an IT project for a bank in Scotland, before his right to work was removed by the Home Office.

Mr Pande applied for ILR—indefinite leave to remain—under long-term residency rules in 2017. He had been in the UK for 12 years at that point. He hired an accountant, but his tax return submissions were subsequently questioned by the Home Office. As a result, Mr Pande made attempts to change his accountant and to rectify the errors, but the Home Office has continued to pursue him on the basis that officials believe him to be dishonest.

Most distressingly, Mr Pande was detained at Heathrow airport on his return from a family holiday in 2017. His passport and BRP—biometric residence permit—were confiscated by immigration officers, removing his right to work. That has a huge impact on the family finances, because he has a mortgage and other commitments. Judges found in his favour at both first-tier and upper tribunals. Indeed, paperwork from the first-tier tribunal states that in some detail—it is a long quote but it is worth putting it on the record—with the judge saying:

“The refusal letter is I think confusing in itself in relation to the Appellant’s income, but I have to say that I found both the Appellant and his wife to be credible witnesses. I do not think that they have acted dishonestly. The Appellant relied on the advice of an accountant. He was entitled to rely on that advice and whilst he is under a duty to check information, it is entirely unfair to expect him to have a level of accountancy and tax knowledge accorded to professionals in this field... He was clear that he sought clarification from the accountant but eventually, when he was unable to get satisfactory answers, he changed accountants… It also appears to me that the Appellant was unfairly treated by the Home Office. His passport was retained during the first appeal proceedings. As a result he was unable to find employment since employers refused to employ him without the benefits of his passport. He was, I think, therefore prejudiced and I consider that this matter should be taken into account in the question of proportionality.

Taking all of the above into account, therefore, I do not consider that the Appellant has acted dishonestly. He may have been misguided, but that is a different matter and I consider that it would be disproportionate in the circumstances to expect the Appellant and his wife to leave the UK, particularly as they own property in the UK, they pay tax in the UK and they have spent a considerable number of years here.”

The last case I want to highlight is that of a female constituent—I do not want to name her, because her children are at school in my constituency. She travelled to the UK from Nigeria and has been refused leave to remain in similar circumstances to the others, under paragraph 322(5) of the immigration rules. She legitimately made changes to her tax return, but the Home Office is again putting forward the argument that she has tried to deceive the Department and it has refused her an administrative review.

My constituent is a qualified accountant, and has been unable to continue seeking work in her field as a result of the status imposed on her by the Home Office. She has been made destitute as she has no recourse to public funds—many on tier 1 have no such recourse.

My constituent has been to my office to seek help in getting school uniforms for her children. Unable to work, she is struggling to keep her family afloat, and there is a real risk that she and her children will be made homeless as a result of the Home Office decision. Her landlord, the Wheatley Group, confirmed only yesterday that, due to the support of her church paying her rent, it was not to proceed with legal action to evict her at this point, but that option remains open. I am extremely grateful to the Wheatley Group for the discretion it has shown, but the situation is not sustainable—my constituent needs to get back to work.

The issue has been considered by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and the Home Secretary corresponded with its Chair, committing to put all 322(5) applications on hold and to carry out a review by the end of May. As far as I can ascertain, that review has not yet been published and no further detail on it is available, although as I said in connection with my constituent Mustafa, 322(5) decisions are still being made.