State Pension Triple Lock
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin Foster(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne McLaughlin
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the work done by Loughborough University that was commissioned by Independent Age? It stated that if everybody who was entitled to pension credit claimed it, that would cost an extra £2 billion. I understand that that is a lot of money, but it also stated that the extra cost to the NHS and social care now is £4 billion, so if we could find a way of making sure that everybody got it, we would put more money into the Treasury’s coffers.
Kevin Foster
I do not recognise the statistics from that report, but I welcome the overall thrust of that argument. When we as a Parliament have decided that we want people on a low income to receive a particular type of support, we want them to be able to get that.
I was interested to hear the suggestion that the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) made about working with banks. An institution that might be slightly easier to work with is post offices, where many people on lower incomes go to collect their pension and do other banking. The Secretary of State, who represents the rural constituency of Central Devon, will be aware of people going to post offices to withdraw the exact cash amounts that they need. Cashpoints mostly operate with multiples of £10 or £20, which may be difficult for someone who has to budget tightly for their bills and spending, whereas at a post office counter they can withdraw amounts literally to the penny. That allows very precise budgeting for those who need it.
This is a welcome debate. I must say that I am interested to hear Opposition Members’ comments on who they expect to oppose the motion. We may hear one of those suspicious shouts of “No!” that are not followed by anyone showing up to vote in the No Lobby.
Pensioners in Torbay put their faith in this Government back in 2019. I believe that they put their faith in a manifesto that offered them a positive choice, and I continue to believe that that is the right basis for us to move forward. I hope to hear next week that we will honour that commitment to them.
HM Passport Office Backlogs
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin Foster(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Foster
Just to be clear, a range of private contractors are already involved in the passport process. The bit that is not undertaken by a private contractor is the decision itself. The customer advice line is run by Teleperformance, a private company. As I have already described, its performance is unacceptable and we are engaged with it.
There is already quite extensive use of the private sector in the process. To be fair, Thales and others have stepped up in the record output that we now require, which is far beyond what would have been expected in a month two or three years ago. The private sector is already being used in the vast majority of the processes in the Passport Office.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Like many other Members, I have constituents and family members who have lost a lot of money and had to cancel plans because of the passport delays. I share the concerns for those people, but I want to talk about the workers who, yet again, are about to be blamed.
It is a thankless task to work for a Government agency at the best of times but—worse—they are now being blamed for the Government’s failings. Could it be that they are under-resourced, understaffed and suffering from stress from the pressure to do more faster? In Glasgow, many passport staff were forced into further stress when they were redeployed to process universal credit claims with just five days’ training when it would normally be six weeks’ training. Could that be part of the reason for the backlog? It is certainly another source of stress for them.
Those same workers face the public’s understandable anger, but it is being directed at the wrong place. The Government are throwing them to the wolves: Ministers are leaving notes on desks suggesting workers should work a little harder—and that from a Minister who is known to lie down on the Benches in this place when he is supposed to be at work—and, although I do not have the exact quote, the Prime Minister said something like, “If they don’t sort out this backlog, I will privatise the Boris out of them.” How did that go with rail, energy and water? Is that the plan? Was it the plan all along? Is that why the Government did not foresee this? The Opposition cannot be expected to foresee these things—[Interruption.] I hear coughing; I had better ask my last question. Is there any chance that we can simply respect workers by increasing capacity, decreasing threats against them and sorting out this sorry mess for everybody?
Kevin Foster
I start on a point of consensus by thanking the many staff who are working hard and saw a record output last month. It was 13% higher than the previous record, so we are talking about it beating that record not by one but by some distance. As I said, there are 500 extra staff and we are in the process of recruiting more; between January and March, 90% of applications were dealt with within six weeks; and support is there.
The redeployment that the hon. Lady mentioned took place at a time when passport demand was significantly down. It made sense to redeploy people away from a role where there was not the demand and on to things such as universal credit and the EU settlement scheme. To be clear, those staff have now fully returned to passport production, and on 1 April more than 4,000 staff were working on it. Yes, there are issues, particularly in relation to the unacceptable performance of the advice line, which is run by a private contractor, as I have already touched on.
We continue to put in place a range of measures. If people are to travel somewhere, we advise them to get their applications in now. We saw a strong level of applications yesterday. We continue to do the work we need to do and to expedite those cases in which people have compelling and compassionate reasons for travelling.
Ukrainian Refugees
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin Foster(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for opening the debate, and colleagues for their insightful contributions on a vital issue, although, given some of the comments in the debate about attendance, I do note that the clash with the statement in the main Chamber meant that people who may well have wished to participate in this debate decided to attend that instead. Some of the points being raised here were obviously literally being answered in the Chamber as we were sitting here, deliberating on this petition.
Putin’s war on Ukraine is monstrous and unjustified, and this country stands shoulder to shoulder with the brave Ukrainian people against his unprovoked aggression. We have stepped up with our response, which includes giving Ukraine the means not only to defend itself but, ultimately, to drive the invader from its lands.
A number of points were raised during the debate, and I will briefly cover and go through them. A number of colleagues asked about passports, and one reason why we moved to the idea of the route without biometrics and based on passports was what we saw in looking at the analysis of those who had presented themselves, wanting to apply. In something like the first 2,000 people who presented themselves, fewer than 100 did not have a valid Ukrainian passport. Let me be clear that we are talking about a valid Ukrainian passport; we are not detailing the type of Ukrainian passport—those familiar with Ukraine’s passport will know that it started issuing a new type of passport seven years ago—provided that it is valid. The vast majority have brought their passport with them.
On the question of whether we are offering paid priority services, I think we would all agree that it would be, frankly, immoral to offer a paid priority service in the family scheme, and I can certainly say to colleagues today that we are looking to suspend, across UK Visas and Immigration, our super priority and priority visa services. We will still prioritise people in the wider system who have compelling and compassionate circumstances—for example, someone seeking to travel to the UK for a funeral or perhaps someone who needs urgently to take up a role in the NHS. But we will look to suspend the general priority service—again, to free up UKVI resource. I think we all realise that it is actually right that at this time as many of our decision makers as possible are prioritised to this particular route rather than our normal type of priority visa services. Certainly, people should not be being charged at a VAC when they are looking to make applications to this route, and that is something that we are clear on. Also, suspending the wider priority visa services clears up any confusion if people inquire about the wider migration system while at that particular visa application centre.
I hope that colleagues will appreciate why it would not be particularly sensible to go into exact details on what safeguarding checks will be done on those who offer to sponsor people coming to the UK, but yes, safeguarding checks will be performed, as in the devolved Administrations. I think hon. Members will understand why it would not be sensible for me to start reading out the list of exactly what we will do and what we will check. Safeguarding checks on people who offer to be sponsors will be in place, because we are conscious that many of those being sponsored will be vulnerable, whether they are adults or children.
Anne McLaughlin
As well as asking for that, I asked about the people who are then placed with a family or with somebody who has a spare room. How will we ensure that they have the knowledge, the means and the confidence to reach out for help? Somebody who is taken in will be extremely grateful because they no longer have bombs raining down on them, but they may feel uncomfortable, or something may go wrong, and they may not want to report it. How can we ensure that people in that situation—primarily women and children—are able to do so?
Kevin Foster
That is a good point. Some funding is being offered to local communities. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the slightly different structure in Northern Ireland, as we saw with the national transfer scheme for unaccompanied children, reflecting the devolved structure there. We are providing a funding package to local councils; I appreciate that hon. Members taking part in the debate will not have heard the statement in the main Chamber, but that is something we are working on.
I think it is safe to say that I and the Scottish Government have not always got on particularly well, but on a serious note, I welcome their genuinely constructive offers. I have had brief conversations with Neil Gray—he is co-ordinating for the Scottish Government, as Lord Harrington is for the UK Government—about what work they can do on those points. As colleagues have said, speed and getting people in are becoming essential. How can we do that?
My own community does not have the experience of Glasgow, for example, in welcoming communities of asylum seekers. That should not become a delaying factor across large parts of the UK, and balances need to be struck. There are funding packages to try to create that support. I also recognise that there are wider debates around how we can ensure that support is provided. That is what colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will be working on closely.
Kevin Foster
In a moment. I then look at other areas, and it is perhaps a tale of two cities. Edinburgh, which is not that far away, does not take part in the dispersal area system for asylum seekers. I am regularly struck by the arguments that all must take part. That is certainly another item that we will be looking at closely.
Kevin Foster
I will take an intervention first from the Labour shadow Minister, and then I will come back to the hon. Lady.
Kevin Foster
I am keen to encourage all to take part. I think there are only five councils that have not offered in principle to take part in the Afghan resettlement scheme. The hon. Gentleman will note what we recently did with the national transfer scheme, where every council in the UK—I acknowledge that it is done slightly differently in Northern Ireland—is now mandated to take part in the process around unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. He will also note the references I have just made to dispersal accommodation in relation to asylum seekers.
I am struck that there are communities that step up every single time, including in places such as Stoke-on-Trent with Conservative-led councils. In other areas I hear demands that people do things for asylum seekers, yet when we approach them about becoming a dispersal area, they seem strangely quiet.
Anne McLaughlin
COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, has told the Minister and his colleagues—as have I—that every one of the 32 Scottish local authorities, in addition to taking in refugees under the Syrian resettlement scheme, would be happy, if it were appropriate in terms of wraparound services and if there were any support, to take part in the asylum dispersal scheme. The problem is that the Government expect the councils to carry all the costs associated with that. There is no excuse; if the Minister is going to start supporting the councils, they will start chipping in with the scheme as well as with the refugees.
Kevin Foster
What I find interesting is that I regularly hear how it is about moral duties and that people should be taking part, but I have to contrast that with the situation that the hon. Lady has alluded to in Scotland, where 31 out of 32 local authorities are not dispersal areas, including the city of Edinburgh. The only place in Scotland that is a dispersal area is the city of Glasgow.
Amnesty for Undocumented Migrants
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin Foster(3 years, 5 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
Kevin Foster
I will not, as I have less than five minutes and this has been a lengthy debate.
The Government remain committed to an immigration policy that welcomes and celebrates people who are here legally but also deters illegal immigration. We want to encourage people with skills and potential from around the world to make the UK their home and help make the UK a dynamic global economy, but we must not reward those who exploit the system and break the rules. We must also prevent the abuse of benefits and services paid for by UK taxpayers and disrupt the criminals who exploit and profit from the vulnerable, who will be tempted to use dangerous and irregular routes to get here if they can see a clear reward at the end of it. That is right both for the British public who pay for welfare services and for those wishing to visit and settle in the UK who played by the rules.
The Government recognise that we have a responsibility to help the vulnerable and have established several schemes and programmes to assist those most in need. One example is the work that we have done to resettle genuine refugees fleeing directly from regions of conflict and instability and to provide the necessary support to help them build a life in the UK and integrate as self-sufficient members of our society. In the past six years, the Government have offered protection to 25,000 people in this way—more than any other country in Europe in that period—through a planned resettlement scheme. That is in addition to welcoming a further 29,000 people through refugee family reunion between 2015 and 2019. We have also recently introduced a new pathway to citizenship for British national overseas status holders and their family members facing draconian new security laws in Hong Kong, with an estimated 5.4 million people potentially being eligible for the scheme.
We believe that a fair and balanced system is about guaranteeing integrity in the UK’s immigration system. We must support those in need, but we must also make sure that there is a cost for those who intend to break the rules, as have Governments of all colours since the introduction of our modern immigration system, despite some of the comments we have heard today.
The proposal to offer amnesty to all those without permission to be in the UK undermines the integrity and effective working of the UK immigration system. To recognise the stay of those who have wilfully and deliberately broken our laws is first and foremost an affront to those who have done the right thing and migrated here lawfully and contributed by paying visa fees and the immigration surcharge. An amnesty for those not playing by the rules could prove divisive for those groups who feel an injustice when they have complied with our policies, and it is safe to say that it is unlikely to build public confidence in the migration system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, it would certainly be interesting to see the public reaction if such a policy were included in an election manifesto.
The debate is about not just the impact of those ignoring our migration rules and refusing to leave but making sure that the public feel that there is confidence in the system. Why would someone bother to apply for status or renew their visa if they knew that they could just stay and be granted that status anyway? A point ignored by the petition and by some Members is the fact that the immigration routes already provide for undocumented migrants who have not broken the law except for by remaining in the UK without lawful immigration status.
Kevin Foster
I have less than two minutes, I am afraid. I appreciate that you wanted to give people time, Mr Hosie, but as the Minister I have only eight minutes to wind up, which is pretty short.
People who fear the situation in their country of origin may choose to claim asylum, and there is no cost to that. Those with qualifying family members who are present and settled in the UK can apply under the family rules, for example where there is a qualifying partner and insurmountable obstacles to family life continuing outside the UK. The private life rules provide for those who have been in the UK for a particularly long time to regularise their status. That said, we are in the process of reforming our immigration rules and, as many Members may be aware, I have met the group We Belong to discuss the current process for those who arrived here as children or were born here but did not qualify for British citizenship. We aim to simplify the settlement rules in the near future, as part of our wider work on the new migration system, which will include some changes in response to the points raised by that group, and we will reduce the number of people ending up on the 10-year route to settlement. We accept that too many people are on that route.
I have had to give a fairly short summary of the Government response, but we do not believe that granting an amnesty, as proposed by this petition, would be appropriate. It would undermine the rules—actually, it would make the whole creation of rules pointless if people could just ignore them and get status anyway.
Immigration Rules
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin Foster(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, MsVey. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for securing the debate with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and for the contribution that she has made. Such debates are an important aspect of the Home Office’s accountability, and they ensure that our decisions are held up to scrutiny. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to set out some of the background to this particular cohort of cases and what we are doing to ensure that all the applications involved are treated fairly. There are some legal actions going on, but I would be happy to meet hon. Members and groups that are not involved. Perhaps we can discuss the details separately, given the limited time.
It has to be said that the tier 1 general route, to which highly skilled migrants applied, was beset with problems and opportunities for abuse, which is why the Government closed it to new applications back in 2011. The investigations that we have concluded so far show that the principal issue is not tax records and the evasion of tax payments that should have been made, but applicants falsifying their earnings to obtain their immigration status, often involving five-figure sums. It would be simple to ignore those concerns and grant all the outstanding applications. However, that would not be a right or just outcome for those who did play by the rules, given that the scale of the discrepancies is often far beyond those that might be attributed to innocent mistakes or accounting practice.
Anne McLaughlin
Surely the Minister is not suggesting that everyone I am talking about has been denied indefinite leave to remain because they falsified earnings in order to get themselves here. Those people were invited and allowed to come in. He is not suggesting that, is he?
Kevin Foster
I am afraid that we have evidence from a range of cases showing that people did look to inflate their earnings from self-employment. In each case we will make an individual decision, but in each case we are satisfied that there is evidence. There will be an opportunity for people to make their representations directly, but we should not ignore the fact that there has been some quite clear evidence. We are not talking about a difference of a couple of quid between their tax return and what they told the Home Office; we are talking about quite significant amounts. We will continue to consider all the evidence fairly and objectively in each individual case and not generalise about them all. We will give applicants the chance to respond to any concerns we have. But, as anyone would expect, we will be firm with those who have sought to play the system.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister says that he will consider every case on its merits, but what happens to those people in the meantime? They are not allowed to work, rent, drive or have a bank account, and they are not allowed any recourse to public funds. Those people have families, with children at school. The kids will not be allowed to go to school. What happens to them in the meantime, because it is taking a very long time to reach decisions?
Kevin Foster
There are a number of processes that we are going through, but it might be helpful if I set out the scale of the discrepancies. In cases where investigations have been completed, there were instances of applicants claiming points for earnings that were, in 80% of cases refused, at least £10,000 higher and, on average, £27,600 higher than the earnings shown by their tax records. We would all agree that those are not minor errors. In any context where we were talking about someone with a discrepancy of £27,000 on their tax return, we would probably make a point about whether they were paying the tax they should be paying.
Kevin Foster
We do so by sharing information between the two Departments. If someone gives information about their salary to one part of Government, saying that it is an honest declaration of their tax position to meet taxation laws, it should not come as a huge surprise if that is then considered when looking at a declaration of income that they have made to another part of Government relating to rules on immigration status.
Let us be clear that not all tier 1 general cases share those characteristics. Many applicants did find highly skilled employment, and the vast majority were successful in their applications. There are outstanding cases because it is important that we take the time to get to the bottom of concerns in those outstanding cases and establish whose earnings were genuine and whose were not.
With regard to the tax discrepancies, the Home Office does not trawl through people’s tax records looking for any errors or discrepancies in order to refuse applications. Where we have checked tax records, it is because the evidence of an applicant’s claimed earnings was not strong, and we were actually looking for further evidence to support their claims and grant their applications, as we are doing in other parts of the immigration system. Sadly, all too often our investigations found their tax records did not support the claims they made to the Home Office about their earnings.
It is interesting to note that when it became widely known that we were doing that, HMRC saw a surge in requests from tier 1 general visa holders to make some highly unusual amendments to their tax records, often involving large amounts solely for the earnings periods relied on in visa applications. That pattern was actually so unusual that HMRC brought it directly to the Home Office’s attention.
Again, we are not talking about the sorts of minor discrepancies or tax errors that HMRC deals with day in, day out. Our investigations show instances of individuals increasing their earnings on their tax records, waiting until a Home Office application is granted and then amending their earnings back down again so that they do not have to pay the extra tax that these variations would have incurred.
Anne McLaughlin
I need to put on the record that I am not for one minute suggesting that in those circumstances, when someone has done all three things, that person has done nothing wrong. However, not all of these people fit that category. Is it just a coincidence that not a single person who has been refused a visa on that basis is white? Is it just a coincidence that 70% of them are Pakistani nationals? What is the explanation for that?
Kevin Foster
I will come on to our response to the Migrants’ Rights Network report in a moment. However, to be very clear, in each instance it is the evidence in the case and not any other factors, such as nationality, that is looked at. Of course, given that there was free movement at the time, those from the European economic area would not have been applying under this type of migration system—again, there is a narrower scope for it.
In response to some of the points made earlier, let us be clear that the principal concern is not tax avoidance—it is not the idea that people have not paid tax on £27,000 of earnings, for example—but visa fraud. It is people effectively saying to the Home Office that they made earnings that meet this bar that they did not actually make—not that they did not pay tax on significant earnings. Just saying, “HMRC did not take action, so neither should the Home Office” misses this rather crucial point.
Particular reference was made to paragraph 322(5). It does not relate only to serious criminality or terrorism; it has always had a much broader remit, including an applicant’s general conduct in the UK, which unsurprisingly has always formed a part of immigration decision making. The courts consistently agreed that the use of paragraph 322(5) was appropriate in cases in which applicants failed to give any convincing explanations of discrepancies in the earnings for which they had claimed points. Yet, to touch on the point made earlier, as part of our new immigration system we have been overhauling and simplifying the immigration rules, so this paragraph will no longer apply to future applications. Under our new rules, we no longer group criminality and terrorism together with issues such as conduct or false representation, which is a clearer approach. However, those were not the rules that applied at that time.
I am aware of the recent report by the Migrants’ Rights Network suggesting that only people of certain Commonwealth and former Commonwealth nationalities are being refused. Sadly, the Migrants’ Rights Network has not shared its data with us. However, our own data show that the six nationalities mentioned in its report accounted for 68% of all people in the tier 1 general route since 2010. The same nationalities represent 65% of those granted settlement in the route since 2010. What difference exists relates to the greater proportion, for whatever reason, of applicants of these nationalities who relied on self-employed earnings, rather than earnings via pay-as-you-earn, in their applications. Our approach is therefore is to examine each case individually, look at all the evidence on its merits and not make assumptions based on an applicant’s nationality or any other attributes. We have strengthened our processes further since the Court of Appeal judgment in the Balajigari case to avoid any possibility of procedural unfairness.
For those investigations that we have concluded, we have found that, in a small minority of cases, applicants have provided new and more credible evidence of their earnings, and their cases have now been granted. In all others, we are carrying out a balancing exercise, weighing any false representations that applicants made in the past against any compelling reasons for allowing their stay in the UK in spite of this conduct. Where there are strong grounds for doing so, we are granting these applications. We have also supported applicants through the process and given them extra time to provide evidence, especially when their ability to do so has been affected by the pandemic.
Turning to the queries about the approach for highly skilled migrants in the future, we are looking to implement an unsponsored route. We are going to learn very clearly from the issues and problems of the previous tier 1 route, especially the issue of how earnings were declared to the Home Office. We will shortly provide details of the new route in the forthcoming innovation strategy, and I hope Members concerned to avoid these issues will be reassured by what they read.
We will not ignore the actions of those who sought to play the system by inflating their earnings to seek an immigration advantage, but we will ensure that all applicants are treated fairly, based on the individual circumstances of their cases, and given a fair opportunity to rebut any queries about the earnings they have declared to HMRC and the Home Office. However, no one should be surprised that we check each other’s notes.
Question put and agreed to.
EU Settlement Scheme
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin Foster(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Foster
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we have already published some quite significant guidance on the exact position for people who have had to go home to their country. To be clear, if someone has settled status, they can actually be outside the UK for up to five years without losing that status. For those with pre-settled status, there are provisions that allow them to be outside the UK for an important reason during the qualification period. Reports that people would lose that entitlement if they were out of the country for more than six months during the pandemic were not correct; we have published guidance on that. If someone has gone home to be with their family, having been resident in the UK before 31 December, there are a number of provisions in place to ensure that they can still secure the status they deserve under the European settlement scheme.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
The hospitality sector, among others, has long warned that Brexit would mean it lost much of its workforce, and it has; but worse, more than 100,000 people who want to stay are waiting more than three months for a decision. Does the Minister realise that after this week employers will be scared to employ those workers? In a recent debate, he told me that everyone receives a certificate of application and that this would suffice. Well, the3million advised me today that many have never received this certificate. Why not? I have seen one, and it does not tell employers for how long it remains valid. Again, why not? The process also requires applicants to go through 14 stages on a website—if it is working.
I do not envisage a big bang on 1 July but I do foresee huge problems in the coming months, with people willing to work and employers desperate to employ, but too much uncertainty about the legality of doing so. I appreciate the desire to go digital, but until that digital is working properly, why will the Government not provide physical proof for people, as they can apparently do for covid vaccination status? If it is too difficult, please just do what the Scottish Government and others have called for and extend the deadline—or, better still, scrap the scheme and have a declaratory scheme, which is what was promised by many of the Minister’s colleagues, including the Prime Minister, in the first place.
Kevin Foster
I have already pointed out exactly the issue with declaratory schemes. They sound good in theory, because everyone gets a status; the problem is that if no record is taken and nothing is issued to prove that status, in later years it is extremely difficult for people to prove their rights. That is the key lesson learned from the experience of those who were granted a declaratory status back on 1 January 1973.
Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that those who have made an in-time application and have a certificate of application retain a right to work here in the UK while their application is being considered. We have been clear in our guidance about what employers should do if they have any queries or issues. There is no requirement for employers to undertake retrospective checks; they maintain a statutory excuse in relation to the right-to-work checks and legislation, if they accepted an EEA passport or national identity card as proof of a right to work before 30 June. That is the clear position.
This morning, we have sent a detailed reply to the3million regarding some particular queries it had about those who are yet to receive a certificate of application. Given the length of this session, I will arrange for that to be placed in the Library for Members’ reference.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Kevin FosterTuesday 7th June 2016
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 June 2016 - (7 Jun 2016)
Anne McLaughlin
If the review shows that the bulk powers are not necessary, as the reviews in the USA showed, would the hon. Gentleman expect the powers to be taken out of the Bill?
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful and interesting intervention. First of all, I would not want to prejudge the review. In addition, if the review came back to us and said that these powers were absolutely right, and that they were vital for national security, I hope that we could look forward to the SNP’s immediate and wholehearted support. I have a funny feeling that we might not, however.
Let us not prejudge the review. As the Front-Bench spokesmen touched on in their exchange at the Dispatch Box, it is highly unlikely that if the review stated that something specific was not needed, such a measure would be proceeded with. How do we know what an independent review will come back with? If I knew, and I stood here and said so, the next accusation would be that the review was not independent because we already knew what it would come out with. That point does not support making the amendments, which remove these powers completely.
I have been satisfied by the changes that have been made throughout the process, as the Bill has come out of Committee into Report. Judicial safeguards have been strengthened, and there is now a stronger and more consistent judicial test for review of these warrants. Powers have been increased, as have the offences that apply if someone misuses data. The Government are striking the right balance between what we need in order to get hold of data that could keep our country safe, and the legitimate expectation of privacy. If data have been collected that are of no use, they can be removed and they will not be used for purposes beyond the original basis of the warrant.
Ultimately, in any unjustified use of a warrant, the Secretary of State remains answerable to this Parliament. If, for example, someone decided for some unknown reason that it would make sense to go into detail about political or trade union affiliation, they would be answerable to this House, and a Secretary of State would be most unlikely to survive that.