Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Alison McGovern

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

New clauses 13 and 43 focus on requiring the Government to report on the impacts of ending free movement and our future immigration rules, respectively, on European economic area and Swiss nationals. As I have said, I appreciate that some Committee members do not believe we should end free movement. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South, who spoke passionately on the matter.

I emphasise again that the Government fully recognise the great contribution that migrant workers make to the UK. We remain committed to ensuring that the future immigration system caters for all sectors, and that it benefits the UK economy and our prosperity. We want the existing workforce to stay and we want to continue to attract other international workers to the UK. That is why the White Paper contains a route for skilled workers —it will, for the first time, encompass medium-skilled workers as well as the highly skilled—and a temporary worker route, which will enable people of all skill levels to come to the UK for up to 12 months. Neither of those routes will be subject to a cap on the number of visas granted.

The Government take seriously the economic impact on the UK economy of the proposals that we set out in the immigration White Paper in December and other measures in the Bill to end free movement. These proposals are designed to benefit the UK and to ensure that it continues to be a competitive place, including for medical research and innovation.

I share the hon. Lady’s concern that policies are properly evaluated and their full impact considered. That is why the immigration White Paper contained a full economic appraisal, running to more than 50 pages. It is a serious piece of work, which I encourage all hon. Members to study carefully. However, although it is considered and well thought-through, that appraisal is, by its nature, predictive. The proof of any immigration policy is its actual effect, which can be established only once the policy is in operation. We need to understand how policies work in practice, how businesses and employers react and how individual prospective migrants behave. We also need to understand the prevailing economic conditions in the UK and the countries from which migrants might come.

The hon. Lady spoke of the quality of the debate in the referendum of 2016. I well remember some comments that were made at that time about the views of experts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I give quite a lot of credence to the views of experts, and accordingly I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment behind the new clauses. I am pleased to tell the Committee that the Government already have plans in place to ensure there is an annual review of the kind that is envisaged.

Hon. Members will see that there is a section in chapter 3 of the immigration White Paper on the future role of the Migration Advisory Committee. It says that the Government will commission MAC to produce an annual report on key aspects of the UK’s immigration system. That strikes me as a comprehensive offer, and I think it would be best for any annual review to be undertaken by MAC, which has a good reputation for its independence and, of course, its expertise.

Accordingly, given our existing commitment to a proper, thorough and independent review of the operation of the future immigration system, I hope that hon. Members who have tabled these new clauses will see that they are not required and feel able to withdraw them.

[Alison McGovern]

I accept what the Minister says, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Settled status

‘(1) Any person who has their right of free movement removed by the provisions contained in this Act has the right of settled status in the United Kingdom if that person —

(a) is an EEA or Swiss national;

(b) is a family member of an EEA or Swiss national or person with derived rights;

(c) is resident in the United Kingdom on or prior to 31 December 2020.

(2) Any person who is entitled to settle status under subsection 1 has the same protection against expulsion as defined in Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council.

(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that any person entitled to settle status under subsection 1 receives proof of that status via a system of registration.

(4) The Secretary of State must issue a paper certificate confirming settled status to any person registered for settled status under this section.

(5) No fee may be charged for applications to register for settled status under this section.

(6) Any person who has acquired settled status under the provisions of subsection 1 is entitled to—

(a) remain in the United Kingdom indefinitely;

(b) apply for British citizenship;

(c) work in the United Kingdom;

(d) use the National Health Service;

(e) enrol in all educational courses in the United Kingdom;

(f) access all benefits and pensions, if they meet the eligibility requirements.

(7) A person’s right to use the National Health Service (d), enrol in educational courses (e) and access all benefits and pensions (f) under subsection (6), is the same as those for a British national.

(8) Any person who is entitled to settled status under subsection (1) loses their settled status only

(a) if they are absent from the United Kingdom for a period exceeding five continuous years after 31 December 2021 or

(b) if the criteria for expulsion as set out in Article 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council applies to them.

(9) In this section, “family member” has the meaning given in Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and Council.

(10) This section applies if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union —

(a) following a ratified and implemented withdrawal agreement; or

(b) without a ratified and implemented withdrawal agreement.’—(Afzal Khan.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Alison McGovern

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for tabling the amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to confirm that gender impact and gender equality are important issues that must be taken into account across Government policy. Of course, that applies to all protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

The UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations. The Government are committed to complying with their public sector equality duty under section 149 of the 2010 Act. Furthermore, the Government have been clear that all protections in and under the Equality Acts 2010 and 2006, and the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland, will continue to apply after we leave the EU. We will not renege on our strong equalities and workers’ rights commitments.

As such, we published two policy equality statements alongside the introduction of the Bill, one on immigration and one on the social security aspects of the Bill. Both of those considered the potential gender impacts of the Bill. However, as the Committee is aware, the Bill is a framework Bill, and its core focus is to end free movement. As set out in the policy equality statement on the immigration measures in the Bill, the resident population of EU nationals is estimated to be roughly half male and half female, as the hon. Lady said. As a consequence, we do not think that ending free movement will discriminate on the grounds of sex, and there is nothing further to suggest that it will have a particular impact based on gender. However, we cannot predict the volume and pattern of migration post EU exit, because the future arrangements that will replace free movement have not yet been finalised.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Minister is repeating the Government’s position that either the impact of the Bill will be split 50/50, just like the population, or we simply do not know because we have no idea what immigration will be like in the future. Is it not the case that on the whole, women are paid less by men—I meant to say paid less than men—and that we are moving into a situation in which the amount that a person gets paid has an important impact on their rights as a citizen?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I fear she made a somewhat Freudian slip when she said that women are paid less by men, but I am inclined to agree with her on that point; it is what the gender pay gap tells us.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. When we are considering the future immigration system as part of our conversations about the White Paper and as the immigration rules come forward, we have to consider these issues. However, as I have repeatedly said, this is a framework Bill; its only purpose is to end free movement. As part of our engagement on the proposals in the White Paper, we will have to look seriously at the impact on all protected characteristics, not simply gender. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, it is difficult at this stage to assess the impacts of ending free movement. For that reason, as set out in our published policy equality statement on the immigration measures in this Bill, we have committed to consider all equalities issues carefully as the policies are being developed. The policies will receive equalities impact assessments, and those assessments will be published.

The Government are committed to implementing a fair and transparent immigration system that complies with the equality duty. The social security co-ordination clause is an enabling power, allowing changes to be made to the retained social security regime via secondary legislation. Details of policy changes will be set out in the regulations that will follow, and those regulations will also be scrutinised by Parliament via the affirmative procedure. The policy equality statement on that clause was also published when the Bill was introduced. It looked at the demographics and protected characteristics of those who currently export benefits in the EEA, including their gender. In the policy equality statement, we have committed to consider the impacts throughout the policy development process. The Government will consider the impacts of any future change on the retained social security co-ordination regime in line with the public sector equality duty.

I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. I ask her to withdraw her amendment, for the reasons I have outlined.

Backbench business

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Alison McGovern

Thursday 14th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

One of the messages that I have received from parents is that they already feel enormous guilt, in some instances completely unjustifiably. They feel shame for what is going on with their child, and as if they are somehow to blame. They are not, and I find that in the majority of cases, parents were the fastest to identify the condition. They instinctively knew that something was wrong with their child, even though they might not have been able to put their finger on what exactly it was. I have heard some terrible tales from parents, which I will come on to—I assure you, Mrs Osborne, I am getting towards the end—about the responsibility and burden placed on them. I have even heard about parents who have been told that it is their fault. It simply is not.

We do not fully understand what causes eating disorders; it is complicated. All the parents I have spoken to have done the most fantastic job in supporting their children. As one sufferer’s mother said to me on the phone just yesterday, there is nothing that she would not have sacrificed to get her daughter the help that she needed. Had the mother been able to buy private health care, she would have sold her house to do it, so desperate was she for her daughter to get well.

I know how long sufferers have had to wait to gain admission to April House—something that has been emphasised to me incredibly strongly—and the picture from around the country is that the average wait from diagnosis to treatment in a specialist unit can be as long as nine months. For sufferers, that is simply far too long. As we move from primary care trusts to clinical commissioning groups, it is imperative that awareness of the scale of the problem is uppermost in the minds of GPs, who will be responsible for commissioning the relevant services.

I have mentioned briefly one significant theme, but I would like to mention it again. It is a message that has come from the parents about the impact on families. The effects are many and varied, and certainly include huge feelings of guilt and despair, and lack of comprehension of why this has happened to their child, or why an individual might choose to deprive themselves of the necessary nutrition to lead a healthy life.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I apologise to the hon. Lady, who is making a brilliant case on behalf of the sufferers of eating disorders, for intervening on an excellent speech. Given the shame and guilt she has mentioned, which are big factors, does she agree that it is fantastic that constituents of mine have got in touch with me to ask me to attend this debate? All of us have constituents who have got in touch with us on this issue and have talked about their experiences. Their coming forward helps to dispel some of those feelings, and some of the myths and rumours surrounding these conditions. Will she congratulate them with me?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. One word that keeps being used is “stigma”. She is absolutely right to highlight the bravery of individuals, some of whom were perfectly happy to be named; when I told Katie Waters that I wanted to quote her, she was over the moon that I was going to quote her in Parliament. Others did not want to be named but still wanted to tell their story. They have all been phenomenally brave, including those in this place who have contacted me and talked about their personal stories.

I have had mothers contact me to tell me that when their child was diagnosed with an eating disorder, they were accused of abusing their child. The assumption was made that they must have harmed their child for her or him to have developed an eating disorder. I am not saying that that never happens, but from my experience, the parents and families of people with eating disorders have been caring, loving, supportive, desperate for knowledge and help, and in many cases prepared to sacrifice absolutely everything for their family member to be well again. I therefore pay tribute to charities such as Beat and ABC, which have recognised that this is not a condition of the individual, but affects entire families, wider networks, friends and colleagues.

Beat is working in partnership with Student Run Self Help, which runs a number of support groups in universities throughout the country. Both organisations have heard of a number of cases in which students have not been able to access treatment, or have been able to access only intermittent treatment, due to a lack of co-ordination and flexibility on the part of GPs and eating disorder treatment services at their university and in their home location. They have asked me specifically to highlight to the Minister the serious problem with 18-year-olds going off to university. We know that people are most likely to develop an eating disorder at 17, so that is a vulnerable age.

What sufferers need above all else is continuity and stability of treatment, which Beat originally thought could be achieved by enabling people to register with two GPs at one time. However, after consideration was given to who would have overall financial and clinical responsibility for the patient, discussion turned to the proposal that the home GP could have those responsibilities. This should encourage greater communication between the home GP and the GP with whom the student is registered as a temporary patient at university. In addition, it is likely to be argued that the student should be able to register with more than one eating disorders unit—one at home and one at university—so that they can receive the necessary care during both term time and the holidays.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and my contribution has been somewhat lengthy, so I shall conclude my remarks with a tribute to one of my constituents, whom I first met at April House this time last year. She has gone out of her way to keep in touch with updates about what she is doing to raise awareness of eating disorders. She has certainly improved my knowledge and understanding, and is shortly to take part in a charity sky-dive to raise funds for eating disorders awareness. What struck me about Becky was her willingness to open up about her battle with anorexia and some of the stark truths.

Hampshire is a fortunate county, with excellent schools and sixth-form colleges. Even in schools and colleges rated as excellent, however, eating disorders can flourish. Transition from school to college can be difficult for many, and at times of change, stress and pressure, eating disorders can frequently manifest themselves. Even where teachers and head teachers are good, concerned and caring, and where pastoral care is superb, young people can fall victim to these disorders. I hope that in some small way this debate has helped to raise awareness and understanding in this place. I sincerely thank all those in the Public Gallery for attending, and I thank colleagues for their contributions this afternoon.