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

Kate Green Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I will give way once more, to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and then make some progress.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Home Secretary is looking at the £30,000 threshold, but does he accept that the salary may not be commensurate with the skill level, and that what is important is that we look at the skills needs and do not set some arbitrary figure as a proxy for that?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that there is already such acceptance in the current immigration system for non-EEA migrants. For example, within the current system there is a shortage occupation list—a system that we will keep in place going forward—which recognises that in some cases where there is a shortage, we need to change the salary threshold. There will be flexibilities built into the system going forward, and a lot of that is explained in the White Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

First, may I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to research support I have received in my office for work on immigration matters? May I also say upfront that I strongly endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the support she has from a number of other right hon. and hon. Members around the House for taking action on indefinite immigration detention, which I think we can all agree is an obscene reflection on our current system?

It has been a pleasure to hear so many Members from around the House speaking so positively of the contribution and value immigrants have brought to our country over so many years, and it is true in my constituency, too: we are proud to be home to so many diverse communities, and I hope that the message that has gone forth from the House tonight to those who are here now or who might be considering making their home here in future is, “You will be welcome; you will be valued members of our community; and we will make sure that during your time spent in this country, you will be looked after well and can be happy.”

This Bill is very light on detail, yet it offers very wide powers to Ministers to implement all sorts of potential changes via immigration rules. While I appreciate that that is the way that many immigration changes are brought in already under our present system, the Bill’s ending of free movement represents a seismic change in our system that I believe—and I think this belief is widespread—ought to be subject to careful parliamentary scrutiny.

We also know that our existing immigration system, which is presumably to be transplanted across in some degree to EEA nationals in future, is already flawed, and we have rightly heard tonight about Windrush. I would also highlight the recent DNA debacle, which we do not want to be replicated for future immigrants coming to this country, as we fear.

We are pleased that the Government have asked the Law Commission to look at how immigration rules might be simplified, but it seems premature or, indeed, inconsistent to ask it to do so while asking us to give powers to Ministers to make ongoing changes that the commission will not be able to take account of. The Henry VIII powers in this Bill are very inappropriate in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, especially in the light of the direction of travel laid out in the White Paper and in particular, as we have heard again and again tonight, the very significant concerns about the £30,000 income threshold to assess whether a migrant has the skills to mean that we would want them to make their home here. As we have heard tonight, income is not commensurate with skills, and qualifications are not commensurate with the skills we may need across a whole range of sectors. I hope that the Minister has heard the widespread concerns around the House and will look again at that threshold after tonight’s debate.

I want to echo comments made, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, about the Government’s proposal for short-term work visas. These have some place in an immigration system, but on a large scale they will be inefficient for employers, create insecurity for individuals, damage family solidarity since family members will not be eligible to come in with those on short-term visas and damage community cohesion and integration. I particularly say to the Minister that there is a serious risk of the exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers on these short-term visas, as well as the risk that they will undercut UK workers if unscrupulous employers choose to take advantage of this system.

We will need strong protections at the very least to support a short-term workers visa scheme, yet today our labour market inspectorate is not well resourced. Indeed, Focus on Labour Exploitation tells me that we are at about half the global benchmark of inspectors to workers—it should be one inspector for every 10,000 workers. FLEX calculates that, given that benchmark, businesses face inspection on average once every 500 years. There is great concern about Ministers’ ability to make immigration rules that might increase the vulnerability of those workers without full parliamentary scrutiny.

The Bill will allow Ministers to change rules on social security co-ordination, which is important in facilitating employment mobility. That is good for the economy and for individuals, but it is also a matter of fairness to individuals who have contributed and who have expectations about their entitlements going forward. I hope that the Minister will categorically rule out any possibility that the Government would in future unilaterally withdraw the ability to aggregate and passport pension and social security rights in the event of no deal or after the transition period.

I also want to express concerns for those who do not or cannot regularise their status, including some of those applying for settled status, or those who might become irregular in future, perhaps as overstayers. The current rules on income thresholds are particularly damaging for families, creating a risk of poverty and homelessness. In a number of debates about our Brexit plans over the past years, I have highlighted particular concerns about the wellbeing of children. Again, I underline that issue for the Minister tonight. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium has particular concerns about children, because both EEA and non-EEA children might become subject to rules under which they have no recourse to public funds, creating huge hardship and, as we have heard, shunting costs to local authorities, which will have to pick up the pieces as a result. I hope that tonight the Minister might commit to relaxing or at least looking at relaxing the exceptional circumstances criteria set out in the 2012 immigration rules changes, so that families with dependants under the age of 18 have access to the public funds they need.

There are also concerns about the cost of regularising one’s status and the complexity of the process. There was a welcome U-turn on fees for applying for settled status earlier this month, but the system is still complex. We have to be worried when the Home Secretary has spoken about the 90% success rate for those going to the beta testing phase—even in a relatively limited control group, 10% of cases cannot easily or readily acquire settled status. There is great worry that that ratio might increase in future as more vulnerable individuals make their applications.

I am concerned about exceptionally high fees and repeat fees for those who will not be applying for settled status, such as those who might arrive in future and will then go on to the 10-year path to citizenship. Will Ministers reconsider the impact of that, particularly on children and young people?

What advice are the Government offering to families to ensure that applicants can achieve the highest form of status to which they are entitled? For example, a child with a claim to British citizenship should be able to make that claim in their own right and not be expected simply to be reliant on the lower settled status that might be available to their parent. That leads me to ask the Minister about information and advice, and to ask her to consider the importance of ensuring legal aid and appeal rights.

I do not welcome the Bill tonight. In many ways, it will be bad, especially for the most vulnerable in our country. It will have worrying equality impacts, as we have heard from a number of colleagues, and it leaves the future very uncertain for EEA and UK nationals alike. In those circumstances, I look forward to voting against the Bill because it does not give our country and the individuals living in it now and in the future the rights and good will that they deserve.

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

Kate Green Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Jack Brereton]

Q The key point that I was trying to understand was: would changing the ability of new nurses to come here from the EU have an impact on the NHS? I was not talking about the ones who are already here.

Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: It has an impact, because actually that has been one of our policy planks, hasn’t it? Instead of growing our own domestic supply, we have relied on international recruitment, so whether we are talking about people from the EU or outside the EU, anything that inhibits that will impact on our ability to deliver care to the people of this country. It has been a major plank of policy that instead of growing our domestic supply, there has been reliance on that by successive Governments, so of course there will be unintended consequences for the care we are able to deliver to meet the needs of our population.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Q I have two or three questions, probably mainly for the TUC. Again, they are about the £30,000 threshold. In Greater Manchester, for which I am an MP, the average salary is quite a bit below £30,000, and that will be true in a number of other parts of the country, too. We also know that younger workers and women are likely to be on lower salaries. Does the TUC have a view on whether there should be different thresholds for different industry sectors, different workers or different geographies? Perhaps Vivienne and Donna would also like to reply.

Rosa Crawford: It is important to highlight the vulnerable groups that would be particularly negatively affected by the £30,000 threshold. Of course, women and other groups that are already marginalised are likely to become more marginalised by that threshold, and caught in it.

Regarding your question about the specific thresholds that we would want to set, as I hope my earlier question suggested, the TUC is calling for a future immigration policy that sits with an overall Brexit deal that delivers for working people. For us, that would mean a policy that does not introduce additional restrictions, but rather promotes the rights of all workers. It would have stronger domestic enforcement and stronger regulation of the labour market, which is an important point to highlight, because undercutting is taking place right now. We are well aware of that, and we feel it fuelled some of the insecurities that were taken advantage of during the Brexit referendum. However, it is about domestic labour market reforms and enforcing additional rights, rather than a differentiated migration regime.

We want to address the problems with the current regime, such as the thresholds that are limiting recruitment from outside the EU, and where there are insecurities or certain visas for non-EU workers, such as overseas domestic workers. We would not want anything that narrows down EU citizens’ ability to come into the country, because of what that would mean for overall rights and our overall prospects for a Brexit deal.

Vivienne Stern: There is an argument for differentiating by occupation and by geography, but the problem is that if we introduce a system that is so nuanced, it becomes difficult to explain to people and operationalise. We are really quite concerned about the bureaucracy that will be associated with moving from a system in which, frankly, we do not have to worry about these individuals from a compliance point of view, and they do not have to worry too much about the requirements of applying for a visa, to one in which we have to explain to EU nationals what this all means and help them through the process, just as we do for non-EU nationals.

There is an argument for simplicity, which is why we decided that our position would be to suggest a lower threshold overall. However, the point you make about the potential for this system to be unintentionally discriminatory by gender is an important one. I imagine that we will come on to talk about the impact that this will have on students. One of the arguments we have made in relation to those students who want to stay and work in the UK on the tier 2 regime is that if you are in the north of England and you happen to be a woman, you quite often do not meet the minimum required salary threshold. It is not a policy that is intended to be discriminatory by gender, and you can say that it is not the Government’s fault that there continues to be a gender pay gap—it is a wider issue—but none the less, if this policy does not address that issue, that is its effect.

[Kate Green]

Q And your suggestion for addressing it is to lower the threshold.

Vivienne Stern: Overall, yes.

Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: We would argue that it is probably not essential to use salary as a level of determining skill. It does not really work, because nurses will be highly skilled, but £30,000 is neither here nor there. The £30,000 level features too heavily in the debate, and there are better mechanisms for determining skill.

[Kate Green]

Q What would you suggest would be more useful in identifying the roles that need to be filled? How would we measure that?

Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I think that we know what we need in this country. We know that we need nurses, so it might be that we are looking for that skill, as opposed to an arbitrary salary figure.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Q My colleague asked part of the question that I wanted to ask, regarding comments made this morning by the Migration Advisory Committee about EEA migrant workers making up a lower fraction of care assistants and NHS workers than the national average. Did you say that the percentage of nurses from the EEA is 10%?

Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: My understanding is that roughly 10% come from the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eleanor Smith]

Q What impact will the Bill have on migration to the UK post Brexit?

Jodie Blackstock: It is very unclear, because the power to arrange the post-exit scheme is left to the Minister. That is our concern. Its impact could be profound or negligible, depending on what policy process the Government put in place.

The proposals for the temporary leave to remain scheme would enable someone to go through a process of application if they wanted to settle in this country, for work or otherwise. The proposals in that scheme, which I have not looked at so cannot assess, ought to be within the Bill, so that the Committee can scrutinise them properly. The problem is that by enabling everything to be done using such a broad delegated power, you are not in a position to know.

With the way we are going, this will be left until post exit to be scrutinised, with the Bill proposing using the affirmative process for the first set of regulations, which we think is wholly inadequate, for the reasons we have given. If the scheme is already proposed, in draft or otherwise, it should be in the Bill, not left until the last minute to be announced, at which point it will not be possible to propose amendments to it. Our view is that it is a very simple step for the Government to bring forward their proposals for scrutiny, and they ought to do so for something that will create such a significant change.

[Kate Green]

Q I would like to ask you about social security rights. To what extent does the Bill protect, or fail to protect, the existing social security rights of EU nationals in the UK? Given that those rights and the arrangements that apply are reciprocal, what are the implications of the legislation for UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU?

Jodie Blackstock: The Bill does not protect those rights, because it does not set out the principles by which it will do so. It simply provides the structure for the removal of all current reciprocal arrangements. As with the discussion we had on clause 4, it creates the power for not only a Minister but an appropriate authority to replace those current rights with an alternative arrangement.

For us, clause 5 is the most concerning clause in the Bill, as if clause 4 was not concerning enough. Our view is that the clause ought to be entirely deleted, and we say that for a few reasons—not just the extraordinary breadth of power that it creates, but the fact that the provision to remove the co-ordination regulations and replace them is already provided for by way of section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Indeed, there are four regulations that have already been laid, pursuant to that Act, before Parliament and that comply with what are perhaps broad powers, but at least are curtailed far more than the power here; and, because they have been laid, it is possible for them to be scrutinised by Parliament.

[Kate Green]

Q Can you offer an explanation or a suggestion as to why, in addition to the powers that already exist in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, we need these provisions?

Jodie Blackstock: The memorandum suggests that Government require the ability to change policy on social security co-ordination, and that is the purpose of creating a power here. Policy change would arguably not be possible under section 8 of the withdrawal Act, so Government are intending to do something broader here. In our view, it is wholly inappropriate to be changing policy relating to really fundamental provision for people who cross borders. We are talking about pension rights, access to healthcare, maternity and paternity leave—provision that may have built up over a significant number of years while a UK national resides in another EU country. It is simply not appropriate to leave that to a policy change by way of delegated power, but it seems to us, from their memorandum, that Government are expressly intending to do that to get around the limitations in section 8.

Gracie Bradley: I do not have anything to add to that.

[Afzal Khan]

Q You spoke briefly about data protection and legal aid. Could you elaborate on that, and are there other safeguards that you would like to see?

Gracie Bradley: When it comes to data protection, many of you will be aware that the Data Protection Act 2018 includes a very broad exemption that allows a data controller to set aside somebody’s data protection rights when their data is being processed for the purposes of immigration control, essentially. Liberty notes from the White Paper that automated data processing is likely to be used increasingly in the context of enforcing the hostile environment, and Liberty has, for the last couple of years, been scrutinising what have been relatively secret bulk data-sharing agreements between the Home Office and other Departments, such as the Department for Education, and NHS Digital, as well as ad hoc data-sharing practices between individual police forces and the Home Office.

Essentially, what Liberty is concerned about is the fact that the Home Office is really quite a poor data controller, and yet automated data processing is increasingly going to be the linchpin of implementing the hostile environment. We see, in the most recent independent chief inspector of borders and immigration report, that actually the Home Office is developing a status-checking project that would essentially enable multiple controllers, such as landlords, employers, health services and law enforcement, to check a person’s immigration status in real time.

Liberty is concerned, first, that no mention was made of that project during the Data Protection Bill debates, despite Government being asked repeatedly what they wanted that exemption from data protection law for. Secondly, we are concerned, in the light of the Home Office’s track record on data protection, that this system is going to be implemented in such a way as to leave people without redress and without remedy when the Home Office makes mistakes.

Some of you will remember that, in 2012, Capita was contracted to text almost 40,000 people suspected of being in the UK illegally, telling them to leave the country. Those 40,000 texts were sent, and many people received the texts in error. Veteran anti-racism campaigners who had lawful status in the UK were sent texts telling them to go home. It is one thing to send somebody a text in 2012—I appreciate that will have been distressing for people—but it is entirely another thing for an error on someone’s record to mean that they cannot access housing, lawful work, free healthcare or education. The Data Protection Act immigration exemption stops people from being able to find out what information is held about them by a data processor, and stops them from having the right to know when information on them is shared between processors.

Our concern is that, in the context of the Home Office’s relatively poor track record on data processing, this digitised hostile environment will be enacted and people will be left without redress. Indeed, we see from the National Audit Office report on the Windrush scandal that the Home Office had been asked by the NAO and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration to clean up its migrant refusal pool, and had resisted all requests to do so. We are concerned about the impact of error on people, but we are also concerned about the impact of being able, at the click of a button, to exclude people from essential goods and services that are necessary for the exercise of their fundamental rights. The hostile environment should be repealed, rather than entrenched using exemptions in data protection law.

You also asked me about legal aid. I do not have a huge amount to say about legal aid, except that for the most part, there is no legal aid for immigration claims. Again, we see from the Windrush scandal what happens when people do not have access to early, good-quality legal advice. There are people in the UK who are undocumented, not because they have intentionally tried to evade the rules, but because they have been unable to retain their status as a result of not being able to access good-quality legal advice—or, indeed, because they have been unable to make the necessary applications because they cannot afford to pay prohibitive application fees. Many of you will know that it costs more than £1,000 to register a child as a British citizen.

When it comes to safeguards, we would say: get rid of that exemption in the Data Protection Act—it is paragraph 4 of schedule 2—reinstate immigration legal aid, because it is a false economy not to give people access to it, and look again at your fees. It should not be the case that the Home Office is profiting from fees when people need to make applications to regularise their status in the UK, or to claim British citizenship—to which children should be entitled in any event. Those are the basic safeguards that need to be reinstated before millions more people are brought into the immigration system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

To increase fees. You have said in the past that that might lead to debt bondage, so can you elaborate on how that would happen?

Caroline Robinson: Yes, certainly. We have looked quite extensively at other temporary migration programmes around the world and previous schemes in the UK, and we certainly see a risk in relation to recruitment fees. As I mentioned earlier, there is the possibility of elevated fees and also, as Members will be aware, the definition of debt bondage is an increased fee that is disproportionate to the initial fee paid, and using that fee to coerce an individual into an exploitative working condition.

We see that as a real risk in relation to overseas recruitment, but there are also the high fees that people will have to pay for their visa and for their travel to the UK. Obviously, because we know more of the detail on the seasonal workers pilot, we know that people will be coming for a short period of time—a six-month period—and, as Meri said, on zero-hours contracts, so there is no guarantee of a high rate of pay necessarily, and with potentially quite high up-front fees. So the risk is great there.

Also, we have looked at things like bilateral labour agreements. For example, Canada and Mexico have established an agreement on agricultural workers, where clear terms are established in terms of the minimum hours that workers will have, the minimum working week and the hours that people can be guaranteed, so that there are clear terms for workers, and so workers can budget accordingly and not face the risk of a huge debt that they cannot then repay, or, as I mentioned, a debt that increases disproportionately in relation to the initial debt, which is a risk.

Meri Åhlberg: For example, in Sweden they have migration from Thailand to pick berries, and what they were finding was that people would come, and they would pay high costs for flights, and then they would pay visa costs, and then they would come to Sweden and the blueberry season would be poor and they would not be able to pick enough even to cover their flights. So they would come, work for the summer and then leave in debt.

What Sweden has done, for instance, is that there is a minimum guaranteed wage that employers in Sweden have to prove they can pay. It is a minimum of approximately £1,100 per month for these workers, to each worker that they are recruiting, to make sure that people are not coming and not earning enough to cover their visa costs or their flight costs. There are also important protections that could be put in place.

[Kate Green]

Q That is exactly my question. What could we put in place, or what could the Government put in place, to strengthen protections for workers in this situation? I wonder whether you might want to say a little more specifically about what you would look for in terms of a Government or legislative solution, and to what extent there might be other features or actors that might offer protections.

Caroline Robinson: As I said, we work a lot on the role of the labour inspectorates, particularly, while it still exists—as I said, there is a discussion about a single labour inspectorate and the Government have committed to that—at the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s licensing being expanded to high-risk sectors, particularly those that are likely to take on a number of short-term workers in the future. Those sectors are already high-risk and then they might have a high proportion of short-term migrant workers. We feel that there is a really strong case then for licensing those sectors—sectors discussed, such as care and construction—where there is a real risk to workers of exploitation.

We have also looked at the Agricultural Wages Board and the seasonal workers pilots, obviously in the agricultural sector. We are lucky that we still have an Agricultural Wages Board in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but the absence of one in England and Wales is a real risk in terms of setting the standards for workers in the agriculture sector. So I think it would be useful to look at what kind of worker voice could be integrated in setting standards in the agriculture sector, again given the high risk of isolation and exploitation of workers.

Meri Åhlberg: Another important thing would be to grant people access to public funds. If people are coming here on work contracts they are paying taxes, so they are paying for their services. It seems counterintuitive to not allow people access to services they are already paying for, making them vulnerable in that process.

Caroline Robinson: I would mention again these bilateral labour agreements, to have some kind of engagement with sending categories. At the moment the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has to rapidly try to license labour providers in a range of countries outside the EEA. They have already found it quite hard within the EEA to license labour providers, understanding the different jurisdictions and engaging with workers’ possible vulnerabilities. Having a structure and engagement on the basis of labour rights with a country that sends workers to our country and ensuring labour standards are upheld offers a framework, at least, for enforcing labour rights.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kate Green Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

This clause—this entire Bill, for that matter—puts the cart before the horse. Labour has been clear that our immigration policy is subordinate to our economic and trade policy. The Government’s position on Brexit, on the other hand, has been consistent in just one way: they insist on putting immigration ahead of our economic needs. We simply cannot support measures that would cause our country to be worse off.

It is a fact that freedom of movement ends when we leave the single market, but the Prime Minister herself has recognised the need for frictionless trade and has been told categorically by the EU that that cannot be maintained without a close relationship with the single market. If the Government cannot yet be clear about what the final agreement will be on our relationship with the single market, this makes no sense. Until the Government get their ducks in a row, we simply cannot vote for such a measure.

The Bill also fails to address two major questions facing Parliament. The first is how we will protect the rights of the 3.5 million people who have already moved to the UK and made their lives here. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said,

“my message to the 3.5 million EU citizens already living here has also been very clear. I say, ‘You are an incredibly valued and an important part of our society; we want you to stay. Deal or no deal, that view will not change.’”—[Official Report, 28 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 507.]

Yet the Government have made no provisions in the Bill to protect those citizens.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be the ideal opportunity to offer statutory reassurance to those 3.5 million people by including the details of the Government’s settled status scheme and their ongoing proposals for protecting those people’s rights?

[Afzal Khan]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s comments. Labour has tabled a number of new clauses to the Bill that would put the rights of EU citizens into primary legislation. We hope that the Government accept those when we get to that point.

The second question is what our new immigration system should be doing in the future. The Bill is incredibly flimsy; it is only 16 pages long, which is extraordinary given that it will mean the biggest change to our immigration system in decades. Instead of putting forward a new immigration system that Parliament can discuss and debate, amend and improve, the Bill grants powers to Ministers to introduce whatever system they like through extensive Henry VIII powers. We were given an indication of what such a system might be like in the White Paper published by the Government in December. In fact, Ministers are under no obligation to use the powers to implement that system. If they implement the system described in the White Paper, it will spell disaster for our economy and our society.

We will go into these matters in more depth in subsequent debates, but expert witnesses at our evidence sessions criticised almost all aspects of the Government’s plans. The £30,000 threshold would be a disaster for business and public services such as the NHS. The 12-month visa would lead to exploitation. Labour has no problem with immigration that would treat all migrants the same no matter where they came from, but that is not the system the Government propose. The White Paper is explicit that there will be certain visas and conditions that will apply only to people from “low-risk countries”—a categorisation that the Government are not at all transparent about. Apart from those two glaring absences, the Bill before us fails to address a litany of problems with our immigration system, some of which we seek to remedy through our amendments.

Before I conclude, I have two questions that I would like the Minister to address. First, under what circumstances would the Government use the powers in the Bill? We have heard that this is a contingency Bill, so if there is a withdrawal agreement and thus a withdrawal and implementation Bill, will the Government use powers in that Bill to repeal free movement? Secondly, could the provisions in this Bill lead to a change in immigration law that affects non-European economic area migrants? Could the Government use the powers in the Bill to amend immigration legislation that affects non-EU citizens?

As the Minister will know, the Government are asking for extensive Henry VIII powers. During our Committee sittings, Adrian Berry, Steve Valdez-Symonds and Martin Hoare, all experts in immigration law, confirmed to me that the powers in the Bill could be used to make legislation affecting non-EU citizens. Is the Minister willing to contradict the experts? Does she agree that, if it is indeed the case that the powers in the Bill could be used to make legislation that affects non-EU citizens, its scope is much wider than the end of free movement?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Clerks for working their way through a mountain of amendments and making them presentable in the last few days. I thank the various organisations and individuals for their help and ideas for amendments, and I thank the shadow Minister for engaging with us over the last couple of days. Any flaws in the amendments we have tabled are my responsibility alone. Finally, I thank the Minister; she has been very open to discussion, approachable and good humoured, as ever. The fact that I can’t stand the Bill and utterly oppose it should not be taken personally. Hopefully, we will still be able to have some useful and constructive debates.

I will not rehash all the points I made on Second Reading. I love free movement; my party fully supports it and I pretty much believe it is the best thing since sliced bread. I regret that it is in danger of coming to an end. It will leave the United Kingdom in an unusual position historically. This country has, for almost its entire history, allowed certain citizens to come and go, whether EU citizens, Commonwealth citizens or, before that, absolutely everybody. All the evidence is that free movement is beneficial to us, for growth, productivity and public finances. In Scotland, it has transformed our demographic outlook from a country of net immigration to a country of positive migration. The quid pro quo for all this is that we will lose our free movement rights. My family and I have benefited from free movement, as have many Members, including on this Committee. I regret that this Parliament will pull up the ladder behind it.

The challenges of free movement that are often cited will not be solved by ending free movement but by proper labour market standards and enforcement, by integration strategies and by investment in public services. Neither do the justifications for ending free movement stack up. Indeed, it was striking in the Minister’s speech and in the speeches of some Government Members on Second Reading how little free movement and the supposed justifications for ending it were addressed.

It is wrong to say that people voted to end free movement, because it was not on the ballot paper. To argue the contrary is to argue that almost 100% of leave voters were motivated by that alone. That is not the case. This is the Prime Minister’s red line, not the people’s red line. Opinion polls and studies show that if it comes to a choice between a closer trading relationship with Europe and ending free movement, a closer trading relationship wins. Simply repeating ad nauseam that we are “taking back control of our borders” is not an argument.

Now is the most bizarre moment for MPs to consider voting to end free movement. Parliament hopefully is on the verge of taking control. Who knows what trading arrangements may be secured, perhaps involving free movement. A people’s vote is even more on the cards than it was at the time of Second Reading. As the shadow Minister said, the Bill puts the cart before the horse. Let us sort out our negotiating position first, then we can decide what that means for free movement. If the public are happy enough to retain free movement for a closer trading arrangement, it is wrong for MPs to rule it out at this stage. There is no need to rush through the end of free movement, even if we do leave in a month’s time. For those reasons, my party believes that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

[Kate Green]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in thanking the Minister for being so open to colleagues in preparing for consideration of the Bill over the next two weeks.

I, too, believe that freedom of movement has been good for our country and particularly for my constituency. We are a proud manufacturing constituency that offers many skilled jobs, and we have relied heavily over the years on the skills and talents of EEA nationals who come to work in our industries. It is clear that north-west England is destined to suffer most economically from loss of access to EEA labour under free movement rules.

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about public opinion on freedom of movement. A couple of years ago I had the pleasure to participate in a citizens’ assembly organised by the Constitution Unit of University College London. One of the questions that the participants were asked to address was what kind of immigration arrangements they wanted with the European Union after Brexit. This was a deliberative process carried out with a representative sample of over 100 individuals, exactly mirroring the demographic of the referendum electorate in terms of the vote—leave or remain—geography, ethnicity, age, background and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I never thought I would be in Committee lecturing the Conservative party on the needs of British business, but we are where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made the point very well that we are creating not simplicity but an extraordinarily high level of uncertainty, and uncertainty is costly to the British economy. I am sure we will discuss the costs of the Brexit process during the Bill, but the Government could be handling the Bill better. They could have come up with the immigration White Paper long before they did, and we could have spent time in the past two and a bit years since the referendum discussing that very thing, but they have held off and postponed—and here we are now. People have no real idea what situation EU nationals will be in after the end of March. That is utterly intolerable.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does she agree that the result is that businesses are already experiencing labour shortages, because the uncertainty means EU nationals are already choosing not to come to this country to work? I was told the other day by a food processor in my constituency that there is particular pressure now in the haulage sector.

[Alison McGovern]

I hear the same evidence that my hon. Friend does. We represent constituencies in the same region, so that is not unexpected. Many people will respond that it should be fine, as there are plenty of people in Britain, and plenty of British people can do those jobs. However, unfortunately, that is to misunderstand the labour market. We have an ageing population. What, as we heard in evidence to the Committee, is the answer, according to those who want to put up the border and stop people coming here to do the decent and dignified thing by working in our country? It is to raise the pension age and ask people to work into their 70s. That is all right for people who do a desk job that is not physically taxing, but I do not really want to ask nurses whom I represent to work until they are 71 or 72. I do not think that would be appropriate. My hon. Friend made a good point.

My hon. Friend also talked about lack of simplicity in the new system. The Minister mentioned simplicity several times and the Law Commission will look into it. That is a good thing—and it is not before time. However, the fact is that free movement, like it or not, provides people with rights that are simple to understand and exercise. If we are to replace that system with a new one we had better have a good idea now—today—how we will give people an equal, or hopefully better, level of simplicity. For all the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, making people’s lives simpler in that way is vital. It is the best way to make sure that the economy can innovate and move forward. I find it hard to understand why the Government should move clause 1 at this point, without a guarantee of an equally simple, or even simpler and better understood system.

[Kate Green]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is about simplicity not just for business and our economy, but for families who will now not be clear about the basis on which family members can come to this country to live with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I disagree. If we look back to the Immigration Act 1971—I have become quite familiar with that Act over the past year in this job—it put the right of the people of the Windrush generation to be here in statute, but it did not provide them with the evidence they needed to demonstrate that. It is important we learn that lesson and make sure we do not repeat the mistake for our EU citizens.

[Kate Green]

Does the Minister agree that the conclusion is that we should do both? We should have a declaratory system so that people’s legal rights are clear in statute and, at the same time, we should have a process of giving them reliable and sustainable evidence to demonstrate they have that right.

[Caroline Nokes]

Through the EU settled status scheme, we have provided people with the mechanism via which to demonstrate that. I have confidence in the mechanism. I recognise the challenges, some of which we heard in the evidence session two weeks ago. I am determined we get that right and make it a system that people will engage in, take part in and be able to evidence their status.

--- Later in debate ---

We heard evidence from a lady whose name I forget about how important she felt it was to have citizens’ rights enshrined in primary legislation. I give the same answer I have given previously: the withdrawal agreement Bill will be the place for those measures. I am looking forward to taking the citizens’ rights elements through, but it is wrong to say that we have not enshrined them in legislation. We opened phases 1, 2 and 3 of the settled status scheme through the immigration rules, and it is my duty to lay the rules for opening the system fully by 30 March, so we have already enshrined those measures in legislation, albeit secondary legislation. We intend to do more through secondary legislation for when the scheme opens fully, and of course those rights will be enshrined in primary legislation through the withdrawal agreement Bill.

[Kate Green]

It will be welcome to have citizens’ rights enshrined in primary legislation through the withdrawal agreement Bill, but of course if we do not have a withdrawal agreement, we will not have that legislation. Are there alternative plans to ensure that those rights are enshrined in primary legislation, rather than in secondary legislation, which would be subject to future change and would not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny, in the event that there is no deal?

[Caroline Nokes]

Opposition Members never, I think, let me get away with anything without proper scrutiny. The hon. Lady knows that I want to see the withdrawal agreement Bill passed. That is an important step. I am most enthusiastic and keen—nay, desperate—for us to get a deal; it is crucial that we do so, but I still firmly hold that the withdrawal agreement Bill, rather than this Bill, which is a straightforward Bill to end free movement, is the place to enshrine those rights. This Bill’s powers on free movement will of course be required both in the event of a deal and in a no-deal scenario, but they will be used differently if we have a deal, in which case the withdrawal agreement Bill will provide protections for the resident population.

The power in clause 4, which we shall probably come to later today, is similar to that found in other immigration legislation, and can be used only in consequence of or in connection with part 1 of this Bill, which is about ending free movement. I therefore do not believe there is a risk that it could be used to change immigration legislation for non-EEA nationals in ways unconnected to part 1 of the Bill.

Let me say in response to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that we have been clear that, after our exit, there will be no change to the way that EU citizens prove their right to work. They will continue to use a passport or an ID card until the future system is in place.

I have been clear that we will engage widely on the future system, which will come in after 2021. It will be a skills-based immigration system, which enables us to move forward, absolutely accommodating the needs of our economy, I hope—I have been candid about this since my first day in the Home Office—in a much simpler way. We are confronted with 1,000 pages of immigration rules, so there is certainly the opportunity to simplify enormously. I do not pretend that I have it within my power to “do a Pickles” with the immigration rules by doing the equivalent of his tearing up 1,000 pages of planning guidance and reducing it to the national planning policy framework, but we have to move forward with a system that is far simpler and easier to understand than what we currently have.

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister take the opportunity to reassure employers that, in the period until 2021, provided they have looked at an individual’s passport or identity document, they will not commit any criminal offence if it happens that that individual in practice does not have the right to work because they arrived after Brexit day and did not apply, as they needed to, for European temporary leave to remain?

[Caroline Nokes]

There is a terrible phrase, which I really dislike using: “statutory excuse”. If an employer has seen evidence—an EU passport or ID card—that indicates that somebody has the right to work in the same way as they do now, that provides them with the protection that the hon. Lady seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

Will the Minister place on the record more information about how the Government intend to use the scope of the legislation? As we heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the language of clause 4, such as “connected with” and “appropriate”, means that the legislation could be used to make sweeping changes to immigration rules, not just in relation to EU nationals but across the whole immigration system.

The long title of the Bill says that its intention is to

“Make provision to end rights to free movement of persons under retained EU law and to repeal other retained EU law relating to immigration; to confer power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to social security coordination”,

but the devil is in the detail of “and for connected purposes.” It would be reassuring for the Committee if the Minister could place on the record this morning exactly how widely the Government intend to make use of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that EEA nationals who are employed as personal assistants using funding from a personal budget are exempt from any minimum salary threshold that is set for work visa applications.

(5B) In this section, personal budget has the meaning set out in section 26 of the Care Act 2014.”

I hope the amendment will attract at least some support from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, and that she will take the opportunity to offer her observations on it. The Minister will be pleased to hear that the amendment is probing; it is designed to enable us to explore some of the issues that might affect personal assistants employed by disabled people after Brexit, as some of those personal assistants will be EEA nationals and therefore affected by the freedom of movement provisions in the Bill.

Personal assistants are employed directly by disabled people to meet day-to-day needs for assistance, whether that be personal care or facilitating assistance—

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

Kate Green Excerpts

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time. I do so on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is not a member of this Committee but who has been particularly active on this issue, along with other colleagues.

This new clause relates to the testing of foreign national students in English proficiency. In 2011, the Home Office gave a licence to the US firm ETS to operate an English language test—the Test of English for International Communication or TOEIC—that was widely used to assess whether the English-language capabilities of overseas students were sufficient for them to study in the UK.

In February 2014, the BBC “Panorama” programme exposed cheating on a significant scale on the TOEIC test. Test centres were facilitating proxies to take the test, allowing students with poor English to obtain a pass certificate. ETS responded to this exposé by under- taking analysis, using voice-recognition software of the recordings of all those who had taken the TOEIC test in order to study in the UK. They reported to the Home Office that, of 58,458 candidates who took the test in the UK between 2011 and 2014, 33,725 had definitely cheated and 22,694 probably had. Only 2,039 candidates were given the all-clear.

The Home Office responded by cancelling the visas of many of those ETS claimed had definitely cheated. Their colleges were required to expel them from their courses and, of the 22,694 students that ETS claimed had probably cheated, the Home Office stated that none had action taken against them without first being given the opportunity to resit a test with a different provider. Up to the end of 2016, the Home Office published data on its response to the ETS allegations. By the end of that year, there were more than 35,870 refusal, curtailment and removal decisions made in respect of ETS-linked cases. There were more than 4,600 removals and departures in respect of ETS-linked cases. These figures suggest that a significant number of those who lost their visas as a result of ETS allegations are still in the UK, but nobody knows how many. One estimate is that at least 2,000 are still here.

No in-country appeals were available to those accused of cheating, but some of those affected have managed to get their cases before the UK courts. In a growing number of cases, they have been able to convince the courts that they did not, in fact, cheat. In one case, the appellant showed that he never even took a TOEIC test.

ETS’s evidence has not stood up well to the scrutiny it has received in these cases and was described by one computer expert as worthless. It has proven extremely difficult for students to obtain from ETS the recordings alleged to be of them taking the test and ETS’s records, for example of where the test was taken, have proven unreliable. It is also clear that many of those affected can speak excellent English and some have passed comparable tests with other providers. This is the regime that EEA national students will be subject to in future.

The students whose visas were summarily cancelled have been left in a terrible plight. They were thrown off their courses and were not entitled to any refund of the fees they had paid. They are not permitted to study or work in the UK, and many are dependent on support from friends. In some cases, they have invested their family’s life savings in obtaining a British degree. Now the savings have gone, they have no qualification and face destitution. Many say they could not endure the shame of returning to their home country with nothing to show for their efforts and having been apparently convicted by UK authorities of having cheated. At a meeting in the House of Commons attended by some 50 TOEIC victims recently, it was claimed that all suffer mental health problems.

The student who never took a test, but nevertheless had his visa cancelled on the grounds that he cheated, had completed an MBA course at the University of West London, subject to having to pass two resits. When the Home Office refused his visa renewal on TOEIC grounds, the university withdrew him. He had paid more than £10,000 in fees for the course and has since spent £5,000 on legal costs to win his appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

That is absolutely why that company was suspended from the immigration rules in July of that year, which is perhaps evidence of why occasionally it is useful to use the immigration rules as a very swift device to resolve problems. I would point out that the report on the ETS system, which was undertaken by Professor Peter French, concluded that the number of false matches was likely to be very small and it was more likely that people were given the benefit of the doubt than that they were falsely flagged as having cheated.

[Kate Green]

One of the difficulties that the students face is that it is proving very difficult for them to get a copy of the recorded evidence on which ETS and, it would seem, the Home Office are relying. We seem to have a system that, in its impact, is not just on a number of individuals. I am quite surprised that the Minister is taking such a hard line, because even one failure of justice is one too many.

[Caroline Nokes]

As I indicated earlier, those who received a questionable result were given the opportunity to take an additional test or to attend an interview before any action was taken against them. I know that Members have expressed concern about the reliability of the matching. It is important to note that an independent expert report from Professor French, a professor of speech science, which reviewed the system, indicated that the number of false matches was likely to be very small. It is also worth noting that the courts, even when finding in favour of individuals, said that the evidence for invalid cases was enough to justify reasonable suspicion of fraud and for the Home Office to take action. It is then for individuals to address this evidence, as a number have, through appeal or judicial review.

The first part of the hon. Lady’s amendment requires the Secretary of State to disregard the results of any English language test for any EEA or Swiss national applying for settled status, pre-settled status, to work or study or for any other visa system established under the provisions of the Bill. We have set out very clearly our intention to create a single, skills-based immigration system. English language ability will remain a key strand of the immigration requirements for many of those coming to work, study and settle in the UK. Although EEA nationals often have excellent English language skills, currently we exempt only nationals of majority English-speaking countries and those who have certain qualifications obtained in English, having shown their English language skills through a secure English language test.

Requiring EU citizens to obtain evidence of their English language would put them on a par with a citizen of any other non-majority English-speaking country under the current system. However, evidence of English language is not a requirement for settled or pre-settled applications, and no EEA or Swiss national applying under the settlement scheme will have to demonstrate their English language ability.

The Government believe it is a reasonable expectation that those coming to work or study in the UK are able to speak a satisfactory level of English. Therefore, evidence of English language will continue to be a requirement for other visa routes, such as study and skilled work routes.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful that the Minister says English language capability is not a requirement for settled status and pre-settled status. Will she confirm clearly that, given we know that a small number of EEA nationals have already taken this test and may not have passed it, failure to pass the test will not prevent them from being obtaining settled status or pre-settled status, nor will it put them at risk of removal or other sanctions?

[Caroline Nokes]

I think I can give that reassurance. When it comes to settled status or pre-settled status, there are only three requirements. We ask people to provide evidence of their identity, of their residence in the UK for five years for settled status and less for pre-settled status—enabling them to upgrade to settled status later—and of any criminal convictions.

The second part of the amendment provides for a review of the consequences of the licence issued to ETS to administer the English language test in the UK. As the hon. Lady will be aware, there has been significant scrutiny of this issue over the last five years in Parliament, the courts and the media. A specific inquiry was conducted by the Home Affairs Committee in 2016, during which the Home Office answered more than 100 detailed questions. Given the scrutiny that has already taken place, I do not believe it is necessary to require the Home Office to conduct a further review, and I also do not believe that this Bill, which sets out a framework for the future immigration system, is the correct vehicle to require reviews of previous Home Office actions that have little bearing on EEA or Swiss nationals.

I am aware that, following a meeting with the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Ham passed on details of a further number of specific cases to the Home Office. I assure the hon. Lady that we will respond shortly on these cases and the wider issues that have been raised and continue to be raised. I appreciate that there is frustration at recent delays in response to individual representations, but that is because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I both take seriously the issues that the right hon. Member for East Ham has raised.

I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied from the evidence presented that the Bill is not the right vehicle to address any concerns she may have with the historic abuse of the English language test administered by ETS, and I respectfully ask her to withdraw her new clause.

[Kate Green]

I am a little disappointed by the tone of the Minister’s response. There is no doubt that, as she says, there has been cheating, both corporate and individual. It is unfortunate to adduce other cases that were nothing to do with ETS and the TOEIC case in particular, to imply that there is some general culture of cheating that these students were a part of. We know that specific cases that have been brought either to the Home Secretary and considered carefully, as she says, or to the courts, often have been found in the appellants’ favour. The courts have been quite firm in some of their wording, making it quite clear that it is the Government who have failed to discharge the burden of proof that sits on them and not some legal failure on the part of the students to make their case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the Minister for her answer. There were some helpful pieces of information in there. I again emphasise that the discrimination argument is not really an argument against the principle behind the new clause. If the new clause was accepted, we would also push for the Government to go further and remove the offence for all nationalities.

I particularly note the Minister’s candid admission that no evaluation of the impact of the offence has been made to date. I hope that the Home Office undertakes such an evaluation soon. The Minister can expect to hear from me very shortly if I do not hear any evidence that it has done that. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 56

Recourse to public funds: EEA and Swiss nationals with children

‘(1) EEA and Swiss nationals with dependants under the age of 18 must be exempt from any no recourse to public funds condition that would otherwise be placed on them under Immigration Rules.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a public fund is defined as any of the following—

(a) attendance allowance;

(b) carer’s allowance;

(c) child benefit;

(d) child tax credit;

(e) council tax benefit;

(f) council tax reduction;

(g) disability living allowance;

(h) discretionary support payments by local authorities or the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland which replace the discretionary social fund;

(i) housing and homelessness assistance;

(j) housing benefit;

(k) income-based jobseeker’s allowance;

(l) income related employment and support allowance (ESA);

(m) income support;

(n) personal independence payment;

(o) severe disablement allowance;

(p) social fund payment;

(q) state pension credit;

(r) universal credit;

(s) working tax credit.’—(Kate Green.)

This new clause would prevent EEA and Swiss families with children under the age of 18 from being given the right to remain in the UK but not being allowed access to public funds.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kate Green]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause would prevent EEA and Swiss families with children under the age of 18 from being given the right to remain in the UK without being allowed to access public funds. I am grateful to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium and, particularly, the Children’s Society for helping me to prepare for this debate.

In light of what the Minister has been saying in response to a number of recent new clauses, I am aware that she will probably argue that this would be discriminatory. However, I point out that there is a very strong moral imperative on us to ensure the wellbeing of every child in this country. In particular, we are talking about the children of EEA nationals, many of whom will themselves be entitled to British citizenship or on a ten-year path to settlement.

I do not believe that the “no recourse to public funds” provisions in the immigration system are fair or necessary. We already have a very robust social security system with tough, stringent tests of people’s need for benefits and entitlement to access them. I also think it is wrong to put people in a position where they may be working and contributing to this country, in many cases through tax and national insurance contributions, but none the less are unable to avail themselves of our benefits system, to support their families and, in particular, their children.

We can see that lack of access to support for these children is very damaging. It includes, for example, lack of access to free school meals, social security benefits, and free nursery places, which are offered to disadvantaged two-year-olds. Not only is that extremely damaging to each individual child’s wellbeing, it is damaging to the welfare of the whole country in the long term. We should bear in mind that the majority of these children are likely to stay here and continue to be part of our community.

When families have no recourse to public funds, but children are at risk of destitution, there is an immediate short-term cost, which falls on local authorities. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities are required to take action to prevent children from falling into destitution. The number of such children is increasing for a number of local authorities, and they simply do not have the resources to discharge their statutory obligations adequately. For example, my own borough of Trafford is already facing a substantial shortfall in its children’s services budget for the future.

The significant difficulties that the section 17 provisions place on local authorities are growing and are likely to grow further after Brexit. If the Minister is not minded to accept the exact wording of my new clause, I think it is incumbent on the Government, if they continue to rely on local authorities to pick up the tab, to ensure that the local authorities involved are adequately resourced to do so.

It is extremely difficult for families subject to a “no recourse to public funds” order to have that condition removed from their immigration status. It is very difficult for them to get advice on that matter. As we heard in earlier debates, they are unlikely to be able to access legal aid to make a case for that condition to be reconsidered.

I hope that the Minister will be able to say something strong to the Committee, which will assure us that the “no recourse to public funds” condition will not be applied to children in a way that will leave them destitute. I hope that she will be able to say specifically that those who do not get settled status by the application deadline, or who only attain pre-settled status, will still be able to access all mainstream benefits and will not be subject to “no recourse to public funds” provisions.

I hope she will also be able to say that she will take forward conversations with her colleagues in other Government Departments, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, so that we can ensure that we have a proper, comprehensive and adequate system of support for families with children, and that the “no recourse to public funds” condition will not be maintained in a way that puts those children at risk of destitution.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for proposing new clause 56 on recourse to public funds when granting leave to remain to EEA and Swiss nationals with children. I appreciate that the intention behind this new clause is clearly to protect the wellbeing of children. By way of background, EEA and Swiss nationals may currently access the benefits included in the new clause, broadly speaking only when they are exercising treaty rights through employment or self-employment, or where they have become permanent residents. The new clause would provide that EEA nationals here with a child, for whatever period, could qualify for benefits, thereby potentially creating new entitlements to benefits based solely on the EEA or Swiss nationality of the parent or legal guardian of the children. I am sure that that was not the intention.

As I have said before, the Government have been clear about their intention to protect the entitlements of EEA and Swiss nationals already resident here, as we leave the EU, and to introduce no new restrictions until the future skills-based immigration system is introduced. All leave issued under the EU settlement scheme does not and will not include a no recourse to public funds condition.

I should like to explain in a bit more detail. The new clause would under the future system provide a significant advantage to EEA and Swiss nationals over non-EEA nationals, who generally qualify for access to public funds only when they acquire indefinite leave to remain, subject to exceptions for refugees and other groups. We believe that that general qualifying threshold for access to benefits for migrants is the right one, as it reflects the strength of a migrant’s connection to the United Kingdom and the principle that migrants should come to the UK to contribute rather than to place pressures on taxpayer-funded services.

Non-EEA migrants coming to live in the UK are currently expected to provide for any children they have without recourse to public funds. There is no reasonable justification for adopting a different principle for EEA nationals arriving in the UK when the new system is introduced.

Further, EEA nationals entering the country under the future immigration system will still be eligible to qualify for contribution-based benefits once they have paid sufficient national insurance contributions. As with non-EEA nationals, full access to our benefits system would be available under the immigration rules after settled status was granted—usually after five years, on a route that leads to settlement.

As I have said, I share the hon. Lady’s concerns about the wellbeing of children. However, I reassure her and the other hon. Members who supported the new clause that the safeguards already in place for the vulnerable will be retained. For example, immigration legislation already provides that local authorities may intervene where required, regardless of the immigration status or nationality of the child or parent. However, it is only right that the future immigration system should also continue to play a part in ensuring that public funds are protected for the lawful residents of the UK, and in assuring the public that immigration continues to benefit the country as a whole.

[Kate Green]

The Minister is right to highlight again the role of local authorities, where support is required, but will she undertake to have ongoing discussions with her colleagues in other Departments—particularly the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—about funding for local authorities? Those that have particularly high numbers of such families face significant cost pressures, which they struggle to meet.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady is right to point out the cost pressures on local authorities in relation to that role. I regularly meet not only Ministers, across Government, but the Local Government Association and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which are always keen to reinforce the issues for me.

I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the Government’s approach is right, and I invite her to withdraw the new clause.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful for the Minister’s understanding of the challenge that local authorities face and the importance of protecting every child in the country from the risk of destitution. I beg to ask to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 57

Short-term visas

‘(1) The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 3(1)(c) insert—

“(d) construction work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals;

(e) cleaning work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals;

(f) care work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals;

(g) hospitality work undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals.”

(3) After Section 3(2) insert—

“(2A) In subsection 1 above—

(a) “construction work” means work in the construction industry;

(b) “cleaning work” means work as a cleaner;

(c) “care work” means work as a carer;

(d) “hospitality work” means work in the hospitality and services sector.”

(4) After Section 4(5)(c) insert—

“(d) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake construction work;

(e) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake commercial cleaning activities;

(f) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake care work;

(g) using or employing EEA or Swiss nationals to undertake work in the service industry, including but not limited to, hotels, restaurants, bars and nightclubs.””—(Kate Green.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Kate Green]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would extend the licensing standards of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to more sectors. As with the new clauses that we discussed a few moments ago, I am grateful to Focus on Labour Exploitation for its help with drafting.

Currently, the GLAA licenses four sectors: agriculture, horticulture, shellfish gathering and any associated processing and packaging. The new clause would extend its licensing remit to construction, cleaning, care and hospitality. I am moving the new clause against a backdrop of Government plans for short-term work visas following the ending of free movement, as set out in the immigration White Paper, and out of concern to ensure that there is protection from exploitation for potentially vulnerable workers in sectors that have traditionally relied on migrant labour.

As members of the Committee will know, the GLAA was established in the wake of the Morecambe Bay tragedy in 2004, originally as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Under the Immigration Act 2016, it was renamed and its remit was increased to give it police-style powers across the labour market. Anyone who supplies labour—so-called gangmasters—to the specified sectors must have a licence and it is a criminal offence to do so without one. A licence can be granted to any kind of legal entity, such as an individual, a company or a partnership.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for introducing the new clause and giving us further opportunity to consider the critical matter of protecting the rights of migrant workers.

New clause 57 raises an important issue and I appreciate the intention behind it. As I indicated, I share the hon. Member’s concern that overseas workers—indeed, all workers—should be safe from abusive employment practices. Although I sympathise with the sentiment behind the new clause, I do not think it would be appropriate to change the Bill in the way proposed, for reasons I will explain.

First, it presumes that the employment practices for the sectors mentioned in the new clause are the same as the sectors currently licensed by the GLAA. They are not. The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 applies only to the agricultural, shellfish gathering, and food packaging and processing sectors, as that employment method is particular to those sectors. While gangmasters may be used in some cases, the practice is not prevalent in the supply of labour in the sectors covered by this new clause. In some sectors, such as construction, many workers are self-employed and in others workers are recruited directly, such as with people employed to do cleaning work.

If this new clause were to be passed, the consequence would be that many thousands of extra businesses—potentially every café or care home—would have to register as a gangmaster, with considerable expense but potentially little benefit. The new clause would in effect extend the scope of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to construction, cleaning, care or hospitality work, but only where that work is undertaken by EEA or Swiss nationals, and only where those individuals have come by that work through a particular route. That restriction does not sit comfortably in the existing regime, which defines scope through work sector and not through the characteristics of the individuals undertaking the work. The effect of the new clause would be to create a two-tier system, resulting in EEA and Swiss nationals receiving a greater degree of labour market protection.

The Government are fully committed to protecting the rights of migrant workers and I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are giving active and serious consideration to these matters. I hope to be able to say more on that in the coming weeks. As I set out at length in earlier sittings, it is of the highest importance that everyone working within our economy is safe and is treated fairly and with respect. I am proud of the Government’s track record on this issue, with the introduction of the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the further powers we have given to the GLAA. We will not be complacent.

Let me be clear: migrants working lawfully in the UK are entitled to all the protections of UK law while they are here, whether it is entitlement to the minimum wage, health and safety legislation, working conditions, working time rules, maternity and paternity arrangements, the right to join a trade union, the right to strike, statutory rights, holiday and sick pay, and any of the other myriad protections that exist in UK law for workers. They apply to those who are in the UK on work visas every bit as much as they do for the resident workforce. That applies to both migrant workers who are here under the current immigration system and to those who may come in the future, under the new immigration system.

The Immigration Act 2016 created a new power to extend statutory licensing of gangmasters to new commercial sectors by secondary legislation, so the proposed new clause is not necessary. Although I am loth to say it, this demonstrates yet again that we could make the changes through the immigration rules, which might provide a convenient route to do so. In deciding whether to extend gangmaster licensing, the Government would need clear evidence that that is the right course and would draw advice from the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. I hope that having further considered the wider impacts of this new clause and heard my assurance that the protection of migrant workers is at the forefront of the Government’s thinking, the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the proposed new clause.

[Kate Green]

Yet again the Minister has missed the point about this new clause, as with others that apply to EEA nationals. Of course we would much rather apply such provisions to nationals of all countries, but as colleagues have said we are constrained by the scope of the Bill.

I am encouraged by some things the Minister has said, and particularly the possibility she sees of using the new immigration rules to extend the number of sectors covered by these provisions. I am not quite sure that it is right to say that some of the sectors we are talking about—construction, for example—do not make use of labour providers. I think they do. Self-employment status is often quasi self-employment in that sector. There is quite a lot of work that might be done with the Government to ensure that we have provisions that really work for the characteristics of those different sectors, whatever official names they may seek to attach to their model of labour requirement.

I am grateful that the Minister will say more about the Government’s plans for further protection of all workers. I am particularly interested in how those plans will benefit non-UK workers, including those coming in under immigration arrangements in the coming weeks. I very much encourage her to continue conversations with colleagues who take an interest in these matters and with the advocacy bodies that speak for these vulnerable workers, some of which gave the Committee very impressive evidence a couple of weeks ago.

In the light of the Minister’s encouraging response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

[Caroline Nokes]

As we have now concluded the Bill’s Committee stage, I thank both you, Mr Stringer, and your co-Chair, Sir David Amess, for your effective chairmanship and for keeping us all in order. It might be only me who tried your patience—I am sure other Members have a view on that. I know you have been advised throughout by the Clerks to the Committee, who have acted with a great deal of professionalism. I extend my gratitude to them.

I thank all the Committee members for their thoughtful consideration of the issues we have debated over the past few weeks. Although we by no means agreed on everything, we debated important points in a constructive spirit and considered a wide range of matters very carefully. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—I have said that constituency name an awful lot over the past fortnight; I hope I have pronounced it correctly—for their valuable contributions on a range of important issues. I suspect those will not be their last words on the Bill.

I thank the policemen and the Doorkeepers, who kept us safe and ensured that everyone received the support they needed, and the staff of the Official Report, who ensured that all our pearls of wisdom were faithfully recorded. Finally, I thank my Bill team, who have been unfailingly good humoured in keeping me in line and helping me through my first Bill Committee in this role. I am very much indebted to them. I look forward to considering the Bill during its next stage.