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

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
Thursday 14th February 2019

(5 years, 2 months ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

I am sorry, but we have just eight minutes left with this panel. Kate Green.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My question has been asked, Sir David.

None Portrait The Chair
- Hansard -

Right. Nic Dakin.

--- Later in debate ---
Jack Brereton Portrait Jack Brereton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Q Obviously, quite a substantial number of British citizens are living in EU countries. Do you feel those EU countries have taken adequate steps to address the rights of those citizens?

Martin Hoare: I do not profess any expertise on European law, but no doubt European Governments will look at how we treat citizens of European countries and will wonder whether they should treat our own citizens in the same way. I think there will be many vulnerable British people living in European countries who do not quite understand that yet.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - -

Q How confident are you that the Home Office will be able to scale up the existing immigration scheme that applies to non-EEA nationals to meet the needs of individuals and employers after Brexit? What challenges do you think it will have to address?

Martin Hoare: I think the Home Office will find it very difficult. It finds it very difficult to make quick and consistent decisions at the moment. Unless the Government propose a significant increase in resources to the Home Office, I think it will find it very difficult to cope with additional case work and a whole set of new rules.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - -

What impact do you think that will have on labour mobility?

Martin Hoare: It will severely restrict labour mobility. It will make it very difficult for employers to know whom they can employ. That will not get easier.

Hilary Brown: Already, it is a very difficult situation. We see that employers are very confused and frightened about whom they should and should not employ. When people who have current leave to remain are about to make an application to extend it, we often see employers bringing their employment to an end, until such time as they have received confirmation that they are able to continue to employ those individuals.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - -

Q What guidance or advice has been issued to your employer clients so far about the checks they should be making on the ability of EEA nationals to work in the UK after exit?

Hilary Brown: It is very difficult for employers, because regardless of the guidance they are given, they do not have the skills, knowledge or experience of anxiously scrutinising that guidance. A document may be acceptable, but because they do not have an understanding of the fact that it is an acceptable document, employers often revert back to, “Unless you have a passport with a visa, with a stamp in it that says you are able to work, I am not prepared to run the risk of having a fine, and so I will bring your employment to an end.”

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - -

Q Are your clients expecting that they are going to have to start asking questions about people’s status on 30 March?

Hilary Brown: Absolutely.

David Duguid Portrait David Duguid
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Q I have asked this question to different panels—forgive me for that—but you will be answering for the first time. Do you believe there is any justification for having a two-tier system in the future, where EU citizens and their families may get preferential treatment to those from the rest of the world?

Martin Hoare: I personally think that all people should receive overall fair treatment. I think that currently the family members of EU citizens have an easier set of requirements to satisfy objectively. I find that the Home Office enforces that in the most severe and restrictive way possible. I can see no grounds of fairness to suggest that everybody should go down to the lower level of protection that applies under the purely English rules.