Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Katie Lam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

Finally and briefly, clause 55 confirms that the extent of the Act will apply to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The appropriate elements listed under clause 55(3) also apply to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. Other measures within the Act, aside from those listed in clause 55(4), can be extended to the Isle of Man. Clause 56 confirms the Secretary of State’s ability to specify, through regulations, when the Bill will come into force; that the measures listed under clause 56(3) will come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent; and that those listed in clause 56(4) will come into force two months after Royal Assent. Clause 57 confirms that the Act may be cited in short form as the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I do not think I missed it in the Minister’s speech, although I apologise if I did. Can she advise on how many people have applied for and been granted settled status under the EU settlement scheme?

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I have another question for the Minister. I believe that she said that the true cohort had about 5.7 million applicants, but I wanted to understand more about the numbers of those who would fall under the extra cohort, given that they will be benefiting from rights. Can she give a little more of an explanation as to why the issue has come to light at this point, and was not in the original drafting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would probably put it slightly differently. This is an example of where we are being fair and generous—going beyond what was technically within the withdrawal agreement—because that is right for EU citizens who were here. In line with the approach that we took across the whole of Government, we should make sure that there is a smooth transition and security for EU residents here in the UK and also for British citizens in the EU.

I spent four years on the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union—I was a veteran, from the first meeting to the last. Early on, citizens’ rights were important and central. Policy has sometimes become a bit more difficult because of case law—we cannot always predict where that ends up—so it is right that we look at where we can make the position clear in law, which is what we are doing today.

[Katie Lam]

Just to follow up on the numbers and check that I have understood this correctly, the Minister said that 5.7 million people have a grant of status, of whom 4.1 million people have settled status; presumably the remainder have pre-settled status. Are those numbers entirely the true cohort? Are the numbers of people that we are talking about today extra to that?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady asks a good question. The extra cohort is a minority in that. There are estimates. I am not sure whether I have here the estimate of the specific number of the extra cohort, which it is quite difficult to have an exact number on. But I will make sure that she is written to about the best estimate or the best way in which we can consider it. The extra cohort is a minority, but it is important that we clarify that their rights, too, are derived from the withdrawal agreement.

[Katie Lam]

I thank the Minister; that is very helpful. As I understand it, settled status under the EU settlement scheme entitles individuals to welfare payments, social housing, surcharge-free NHS care and more. Of those people who have been granted settled status, is the Minister or anyone in the Home Office—or indeed anyone anywhere in Government—making an assessment of how many of those individuals are net contributors to the public purse, and how many are a net cost to Britain’s taxpayers?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will just make this point first. In a sense, the new clause will have a very limited impact on access to benefits for those with pre-settled status, or limited leave, under the EUSS. To access income-related benefits such as universal credit, they would be required to evidence relevant qualifying activity, such as current or recent employment or self-employment. Those with settled status, or indefinite leave, under the EUSS already have full access to benefits where eligible.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, I know there is broader research, and there is some data but not other data, and there are different estimates, but I am sure that she will know and appreciate that the vast majority will be working. Her question is also relevant to a more general question about those who are here and have settled status: how many are working? We know that there is different research, but the vast majority are self-sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

I ask hon. Members what criteria they would seek to apply to the establishment of additional safe and legal routes. What safe and legal routes do they believe should be in place that are not already? Have they made any assessment of the increase in numbers of people coming to the UK that might result from their new clauses? The SNP and Liberal Democrat plans risk the UK becoming a magnet for people across the world at a time when our allies in Europe are looking at curbing asylum policies. How do the SNP and the Liberal Democrats plan to stop us becoming the soft touch of Europe? Do they believe that British taxpayers should be paying more than their European counterparts if asylum seekers start coming to the UK in large numbers amidst the crackdown in the EU?

[Katie Lam]

The fundamental question of safe and legal routes seems to be that of how many people the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire thinks Britain might need to let in to achieve the aims he sets out. There are over 120 million people in the world who have been displaced from their homes, of whom nearly 50 million are refugees. That is nearly three quarters of the population of this country. On top of that, the 1951 refugee convention now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 million people, for—as well as internationally displaced refugees and modern slaves—there are all those who could potentially face a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or political opinion, who may flee their home country. Some of those people—many of them, perhaps—are living lives that might seem to us in the UK unspeakably and unthinkably hard and sad. It is also true, though, that there is a limit to what this country is able to do to help through migration. The answer to global suffering cannot be that all those people come here.

New clause 1 calls for a strategy on safe and managed routes, but that does not reflect the challenge of these routes and the way that they are created. By their very nature, specific asylum routes are often opened up in response to specific circumstances: usually, emergencies that could not be foreseen and anticipated in a neat strategy. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal is right to highlight the work this country does with the UN to identify those in the world in the greatest need of our help and where that help, in the form of resettlement, would be most appropriate. It seems to me that it would be impossible to publish in advance a strategy for something that is mostly centred around emergencies that cannot be foreseen.

[Pete Wishart]

This has been a very good debate and we have got to the heart of some of the issues. I will push the new clause to a vote because, of all the things that those involved with the welfare of and looking after refugees and asylum seekers tell us, their main ask of this Government is to look at a strategy for safe routes. I think we are getting to the equation at the heart of all the issues that we are considering today: the demand side and the supply side.

We are supporting Government measures to ensure that they tackle the demand side—they might have useful armoury, like this Bill, to achieve that—but surely we should give even scant attention to the supply side: the reasons that so many people are coming here. The fact is that they have no other option but to get on an unseaworthy boat to sail across the channel to get to the UK, as they can only make a claim for asylum when they are based in the UK.

I am not asking the Government to open the country up to 247 million refugees. That would be absurd and ridiculous. I do not think anybody is suggesting that at all. All we are asking is for the Government to see if they could do something more to ensure that there are routes available for some of the most wretched people in the world who are looking to come to the United Kingdom, and that we do not leave them exclusively at the mercy of the people that I know the Government are sincere in wanting to tackle.

[Katie Lam]

Might the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people would be satisfactory for him and what he is trying to achieve?

[Pete Wishart]

That is a very difficult thing to say. We have some rough ideas when it comes to the Ukraine and Afghan schemes. These schemes are really worth while. We have seen them work, because there are no Ukrainians crossing the channel—we have had five individuals. It is absurd and ridiculous to suggest that every single refugee in the world is going to come, but the Government—we passed this in a clause earlier—are putting a cap and a quota on people using these safe routes. They are not interested in opening up and developing these safe routes; they want to stop and put a quota on people using them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

The Minister says that the professor is a eugenicist, but he actually explained a different relationship. It is important that that is put on record, because it is taking away from his role as emeritus professor for demography.

[Katie Lam]

I am a little surprised to see the suggestion from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire because my sense, from the rest of what he said in the debates we have had over preceding sessions, is that he would like to see less of a distinction between British people and those who come to this country as migrants. Indeed, his new clause 5, which we will debate after this, will explicitly set this out, particularly on the question of British citizenship. A scheme like the one he proposes in new clauses 3 and 4 would have the opposite effect, since any citizen of the United Kingdom can freely move between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, living and working wherever they choose, and can change the location of their home or employment without permission or notice from any authority. We can pass from one area to another without being stopped or questioned, without having to evidence who we are, where we are from and going, and if and when we might return.

A specifically Scottish visa programme would presumably only work if none of those things were the case. Whatever the details, it would surely involve people coming to Britain but promising only to live and/or work in Scotland, over and above the situations where such things are already implied by the specific conditions of their visa—like the university at which they are studying or the company employing them, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh already laid out.

How would this be evidenced, tracked or enforced? Would individuals moving from a few metres into Scotland to a few metres into England be deported? Why would this be a specialist visa programme? If our friends north of the English-Scottish border are especially keen to attract people of working age, be they migrants or not, why would this be the right solution? What steps are already being taken to attract such people, or to make it easier for them to move to or work in Scotland?

Finally, I am interested in the view of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire on why Scotland currently has within its borders so few asylum seekers within the system. Given what he has previously said, it would be interesting to understand why he thinks that the number of asylum seekers—either in hotels or in dispersed accommodation in Scotland—is less than half of what it should be, proportionate to population of the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for this important debate, Dame Siobhain. It is probably the fourth time we have discussed this matter. I want to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will be aware—perhaps this is one point I can acknowledge that he would have predicted my response—that we will not be introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy. This has also been a discussion that we have had, and a point that we have made to the Scottish Government. In my remarks, I will perhaps make a few points that will be useful for his ongoing deliberations on this issue, and suggest how he may direct them towards working with the Scottish Government on some matters that it may be useful for him to be aware of.

The key point is that we must work together to address the underlying causes of skills shortages and overseas recruitment in different parts of the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we believe net migration must come down—under the last Government, it more than trebled and reached a record high of over 900,000 in the year to June 2023. Immigration is a reserved matter, on which we work in the interest of the whole of the UK. The previous schemes that we have talked about have succeeded only in restricting movement and rights, and creating internal UK borders. Adding different rules for different locations will also increase complexity and create friction when workers move locations.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Katie Lam Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I am happy to support the new clause tabled by my friend the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I will also speak to new clause 13, which does essentially the same thing. This issue is about fairness and reasonableness. Ensuring that effectively no refugee or asylum seeker can get citizenship is not reasonable. Refugees will forever become second-class citizens if we allow that to go ahead. I am concerned that that would deepen divisions within society by disenfranchising our newest constituents and residents. The refugees I have spoken to in my constituency of Woking are so proud when they get citizenship, and it encourages integration. Banning them from citizenship, which is what current guidance amounts to, is wrong. I am happy to support both new clauses.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

To quote my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), British citizenship is—or at least should be—

“a privilege to be earned not an automatic right.”

Citizenship should be available only to those who have made both a commitment and a contribution to the United Kingdom. For example, it should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost the public purse more than they contribute to it. It should also be a fundamental principle of our system that those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should never be able to become British citizens. To state something so obvious that it sounds almost silly, those who have come to this country illegally have broken the law. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are proposing that we ignore that fact.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northampton- shire just said, how can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? It seems to me outrageous, unfair and completely against what we understand to be the wishes of the public to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has broken the law when it comes to determining their character and thus whether they should become a fellow citizen of this great country.

Separately, the Conservatives feel that the timeframe the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire suggests in new clause 5 is far too short. In line with our party’s wider policy, we feel that five years is not enough time to qualify a person for indefinite leave to remain. Immigration, as we are all well aware, was at well over 1 million people a year in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and net migration was at, or is expected to be, at least 850,000 people for each of those years. If we accept that the immigration policy of the past few years was a mistake, we should make every effort to reverse the long-term consequences. That is why the Conservative party is advocating that the qualifying period for ILR should be extended to 10 years, rather than the five years in the new clause.

Finally, I return to my earlier point about Scotland, the Scottish National party and the proof of its compassion as compared with its words. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire shook his head when I was speaking about the number of asylum seekers and where they are located. The latest data released on that is for December 2024. As I read it, in Scotland, there are 1,421 asylum seekers in hotels, compared with 36,658 in the rest of the country, and 4,262 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation, compared with 61,445 across the rest of Britain.

I appreciate that that is challenging mental maths, so I will tell hon. Members that that means that Scotland houses only 5% of the asylum seekers currently accommodated by the state in this country. Scotland is underweight relative to population and dramatically underweight relative to size. Given everything that the hon. Gentleman has said that he and his party stand for, would we not expect the opposite to be true—that Scotland would be pulling its weight more, rather than less?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in response to the debate on new clauses 5 and 13. I want to clarify a few points. There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship. In February, the Home Secretary further strengthened measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. This change applies to anyone who entered the UK illegally, or those who arrived without a required, valid entry clearance or valid electronic authorisation, having made a dangerous journey, regardless of the time that has passed since they entered the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Liberal Democrat new clauses 8, 9 and 10 attempt to establish a joint taskforce with Europol and provide annual reports to Parliament to reduce levels of people smuggling and human trafficking.

Most Governments accept that international partnerships and cross-border co-operation have a role to play in solving the problem, but the new clauses could restrict the Government’s ability to negotiate in this regard while creating a cost by way of the need to provide further adequate resources to enhance that partnership and participation. They would also impose a responsibility to create yet another report. The National Crime Agency has said that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. The Australians have done it, but that was with a deportation scheme. Why do hon. Members not think that a strong deterrent—that people who arrive in this country illegally will not be able to stay—would not be more effective in stopping people smuggling?

I realise that the Lib Dems seem to think that Europe has the answer to all the world’s problems, but surely even they must appreciate the need for a deterrent, rather than an incentive. In fact, as Europe reconsiders its approach to immigration by looking at what it can do to deter illegal entries, it is even more important that we do the same, rather than becoming the soft touch of Europe.

[Katie Lam]

In the light of the comments that Government Members have made on other provisions in the Bill, these new clauses seem to us completely unnecessary. Exactly as my hon. Friend just said, they do not seem to us appropriate for primary legislation and seem more likely to constrain rather than empower the Home Secretary and Ministers in their difficult job of securing the border.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will keep my comments brief.

I read the new clauses from the hon. Member for Woking with interest. I understand the important point that has been raised—I think by hon. Members on both sides—about the importance of working internationally on this issue. I suppose my question to him would be: does he not think that an international outlook in tackling the issues that we have here, which is the sole purpose of the Bill, has already been exercised? In December last year, we agreed the Calais Group priority plan with our near neighbours and the joint action plan on migration with Germany. In November last year, we had the landmark security agreement with Iraq, and we also have a well-established relationship with our counterparts in France to work closely to prevent the dangerous crossings and reduce the risk to life at sea.

We have talked a lot about cause and effect, and I can really see the intention behind the new clauses. However, I question their necessity, as well as some of the suggestions made about the intention of the Government, who have really shown a pragmatic outlook about how we deter those crossings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Liberal Democrat new clause 11 attempts to remove the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment. It is yet another inducement for making that perilous journey, and another selling point for the people smuggling gangs as they make their pitch with the aim of profiting from the peril of others. New clause 11, coupled with new clause 10, seems to mark out a marketing plan for those evil and immoral people smuggling gangs.

Successive Governments have maintained that easing work restrictions could draw asylum seekers to the UK because they would believe that the reception conditions were more favourable. It creates a huge potential for an increase in applications from economic migrants whose primary motivation for coming to the UK is to benefit from work opportunities rather than to seek safety.

Do the Liberal Democrats not agree that lifting the ban will act as pull factor for migrants all over the world to come to the UK? Do the Liberal Democrats understand the impact that such a policy would have on other Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? If the Liberal Democrats are worried about skills shortages, what plans do they have to get the 9 million economically inactive people already in the UK into those roles? What thoughts have the Liberal Democrats put into the measure, the legal issues it may introduce with employee rights, and the further challenges it will give the Home Office in swiftly removing those here illegally to their country of origin?

[Katie Lam]

In evidence for the Bill, Professor Brian Bell, who chairs the Migration Advisory Committee, spoke about what he sees as the incentives for people to come over here from France, which is of course a safe country. He spoke of the strong economic incentives to come to the UK and the challenge that poses for any Government because it would not necessarily benefit us to remove those incentives. He said:

“the unemployment rate is 7.8% in France and 4.4% in the UK. The gap is slightly larger for young people than for the population as a whole. I am sure the Government would not want to change that incentive, although the French probably would. If you have a buoyant economy relative to your neighbour, at least in the labour market, that is an incentive.” ––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 58, Q89.]

He went on to say that there are some things that we could do that might help, such as better enforcement of our labour laws, making it more difficult for people to work illegally.

What the hon. Member for Woking and the Liberal Democrat party are proposing is exactly the opposite of what Professor Bell was saying that we should do. Allowing asylum seekers to work before their claims are approved would make it easier for people to come here illegally and make money, and so it would increase the economic incentive for people to come, which we have heard is a pull—perhaps the primary pull—for people making those life-threatening journeys across the channel in the hands of organised criminal gangs. We consider it to be deeply wrong and counter to the aim of everything we are trying to achieve in securing the border against illegal migration. It is unfair and immoral.

[Mike Tapp]

This is another rare moment of general agreement with the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Weald of Kent. We will savour this moment. I will make some quick points on the new clause. It does create an additional pull factor for those seeking to travel. We do not know who is a genuine asylum seeker until their claims have been processed. The new clause would put a lot of people who are not genuine asylum seekers into our workforce to then be pulled away when the deportation takes place. Having asylum seekers in work may also create funding for others looking to travel over on small boats, as they may send money back to others in order to come over.

The answer to this question is in what we are doing already. The Home Secretary and immigration Ministers are working hard day to day at getting the Home Office back doing their day jobs again and speeding up the processing so that those who should be in work can be and those who should not be here are deported.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I wholeheartedly back the hon. Member for Woking’s new clause; I thought about tabling it myself, but he beat me to it. It is sensible and should be supported by the Committee—mainly because it is an utter waste that people with huge skills are languishing in hotels doing practically nothing all day. We host a number of asylum seekers and refugees in hotels in Perth, and I go and visit them. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Weald of Kent that Scotland more than has its share of the general number of asylum seekers across the United Kingdom? I do not know where she has got her figure from.

[Katie Lam]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pete Wishart]

No, I will correct her and then she can come back on that. Scotland hosted 5,086 refugees receiving support from local authorities. That represents 8.3% of total asylum seekers. The population of Scotland accounts for something like 8.8% of the total population of the United Kingdom, so we are hosting almost the same number as our population share—that is quite remarkable given the distance Scotland is from where most of the asylum seekers come in. We have a proud record of supporting asylum seekers. Not only do we have our fair share when it comes to hotels, but we give free travel to asylum seekers in Scotland—something we are very proud of. I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady if she wants to come back on that, but I do not know where she is getting her figures from.

[Katie Lam]

My figures are from the Government release of the data for December 2024. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has those figures or can break them down, but they state very clearly: 1,421 asylum seekers in hotels in Scotland; 4,262 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation in Scotland; and then 36,658 and 61,445 in the rest of the country.

[Pete Wishart]

I think the hon. Lady and I will have to trade these statistics privately, because the figure I have is 5,086 receiving support, and that is from the Office for National Statistics. That is where I got my figures.

[Katie Lam]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Pete Wishart]

No, I am not going into this. I know that we are testing Dame Siobhain’s patience, so we will discuss this privately and might come back to it at another date.

As well as it being the right thing to do, this new clause would also let us use the skills available to us by giving people the opportunity for employment. The people I have met in some of the hotels in Perth have brought a whole range of skills that would be easily utilised by the community in which they are placed. It makes sense to take this change forward.

In the new clause, the Liberal Democrats suggest that work should be available three months after an application is made. That might be a little bit generous. If I was drafting the amendment, I would go for the six months that has been generally agreed with the all-party groups. I think that what we have done is introduce this issue as a debate item, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking for that. It is something that should be seriously considered.

There have been a number of questions at the Home Office about this and from a number of Members—not just from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party but from Labour. I know that we have quite a compliant set of Labour MPs on this Committee, but a number of them have raised this in debates and in questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Liberal Democrat new clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to apply an exception to the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees. Do the Liberal Democrats not believe that we should be recruiting British workers to work in the NHS before we look to recruit overseas workers? Do the Liberal Democrats understand that this new clause could result in the NHS recruiting more people from overseas, rather than from our domestic population, further driving up those numbers? What assessment has been done of the costs of such a scheme, and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that it was fully funded?

[Katie Lam]

The hon. Member for Woking has tabled the new clause with a view to the role that migrant health and care workers play in UK health services. We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in the workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for, but it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture and be informed but not led by individual cases.

When we look at that picture, we see that the volumes for the health and social care visa are eye watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester—well over half a million, of whom many are dependents. Yes, that is because these jobs are tough, but it is fundamentally because they are underpaid. To quote the independent Migration Advisory Committee,

“the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector.”

Immigration alone cannot solve these workforce issues. Underpaying health and social care professionals is financially self-defeating, because the money the Government save in the short term is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state. As we have discussed this afternoon, and as the Minister has heard me say in several different settings, after five years a person who has come to this country on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it, and 95% of ILR applicants are successful, they will qualify for welfare, social housing, surcharge-free NHS care—everything. That must all be paid for, and the cost is far greater than those on such salaries will ever pay in tax and far more than they save the state with their artificially low wages. Those individual workers are also at risk of exploitation as a result of the poor pay and conditions that have been allowed to endure across the sector because we have brought in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming to Britain.

The next, related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes its misuse as

“a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”.

That raises massive concerns about the safety of the patients and vulnerable people whom the system is charged with caring for.

The rules around the health and care visa need to be further tightened, not loosened through an exemption from the immigration skills charge, and they need to be enforced. That is for the good of healthcare workers and, as should be the Committee’s primary concern, for the good of their patients and the country. Exempting NHS workers from the immigration skills charge, or indeed doing anything that makes it relatively cheaper still to hire migrant workers, will make the fundamental problem in the health sector’s labour market even worse.

[Pete Wishart]

This afternoon seems to be a bit of a Lib Dem fest because of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, I very much approve of this new clause.

To the hon. Member for Weald of Kent—I do not like to rebuke her, because that is not the sort of Member of Parliament I am, as you will know, Dame Siobhain—I say that so many people come through the health and care route because there is real need in the whole system. We need people to come and make sure that someone has those jobs. I challenge her to visit the NHS establishments in her constituency and find out the real difficulties that many health professional managers have in securing the staff they require. This new clause is a practical suggestion to deal with a real issue in our immigration system. It is unfair that those who come to do some of the most demanding and low-paid jobs in the UK are forced to pay that charge.

[Katie Lam]

I do not disagree with the hon. Member at all about the problems in the sector. My point was that the fundamental reason for those problems is that the roles are underpaid.

[Pete Wishart]

We know those jobs are underpaid, and that is why so few people in the general community whom the hon. Lady would class as British-born are prepared to do them. We are dependent on people coming to our shores to do those jobs, and our health service would fall apart if they all decided to leave. We depend on them, and it is unfair that they have to pay that extra and excessive charge. I hope that the Government will look at this new clause, because I think it is reasonably good and one of the few that would make a significant and practical improvement to the situation.

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Katie Lam Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate.

We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in that workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for. However, it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture, informed—but not led—by individual cases, and there is a wider question to address.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration and successive Governments did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for decades, and remains so. That is relevant today, because the volumes of people on the health and social care visa are eye-watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester. Why is that? Because those jobs are tough, yes—but fundamentally because those jobs are underpaid.

The Migration Advisory Committee says,

“the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector…immigration could not solve these workforce issues alone.”

This situation is economically self-defeating. There is no question that money the Government save in the short term by underpaying salaries in health and social care is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state. After five years, a person who has come here on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they will qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care, everything. All that costs money, far more money than those on these sorts of salaries will ever pay in tax and or than they will save the state with their artificially low wages. This cannot go on.

As the hon. Members for Poole, for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have noted, those individuals are at risk of exploitation. That is a result of the poor pay and conditions across the sector, which have been allowed to endure through bringing in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming here. A certificate of common sponsorship will simply not solve this fundamental problem.

The next related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes “misuse” of the visa as

“a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”.

All these issues raise massive concerns about the safety of patients and vulnerable people that the system is charged with caring for. It is awful that that system built up under a Conservative Government.

The change of rules to limit dependants is insufficient to fix the whole problem, but was a substantial step in the right direction. Numbers in the most recent year fell by two thirds. The rules around the health and social care visa need to be tightened further, not loosened through a certificate of common sponsorship, and actually enforced. That is for the good of not only those healthcare workers themselves, but—as should be the primary concern of hon. Members here—for the good of their patients and of this country.

Can the Minister please confirm that that reform is not under consideration? Can she please set out the discussions she is having with her Treasury and Health Department counterparts about the problem of underpaid jobs in health and social care? Can she please tell us how many migrants on care worker visas the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? Can she tell us, based on demographic level of income and number of dependants, what the Government expect this to cost?

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Katie Lam Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), the Petitions Committee and the 101,321 members of the public who have requested that we debate this topic. Those 100,000 people have asked us to discuss this policy because, as many hon. Members have movingly pointed out, it can be overwhelmingly important to those it affects. There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those you love. To be separated from your husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to it can feel like everything.

The role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family, so we must place this discussion in its national context: managing overall migration to Britain. The public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but, again like the Governments before them, did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for the last two decades and remains so.

The issue of migration is not just about quantity. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost more than they contribute; what they pay in tax should at least cover the costs of the public services that they use. The policy that we are debating was implemented by a Conservative Government as part of an attempt to cut migration and to ensure that those who come here do not represent a net fiscal cost. Clearly, it was not enough, but it was a step in the right direction.

In delaying reform, the new Government seem to be making the same mistakes as previous Governments. To refer again to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex, we in Westminster

“cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs”.

This is all too clear to the country. People can see it in their wages, which are stagnating because they are being undercut, and they can see it in their rent soaring, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the cohesion of their communities and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and infrastructure.

[Tom Gordon]

I am slightly surprised. The hon. Lady raised a number of points about her own Government’s record and what they were unable to deliver, so does she not find it a little jarring that she is now preaching to this Government about what they should do?

[Katie Lam]

It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, whoever is in government. As I have acknowledged, these are mistakes that we made, so very few people are as well qualified to suggest what behaviour could be avoided in the future. That is part of our job and our duty to the public.

[Seamus Logan]

I appreciate the humane remarks that the hon. Lady made at the beginning of her speech, but is she not now guilty of continuing to slur migrant workers who come to this country as representing a net fiscal drain on the economy? These workers contribute to our economy, and they represent a contribution to its growth.

[Katie Lam]

It is far from a slur. I will come on to more statistical analysis of fiscal costs in a moment, but if a migrant to this country represents a fiscal cost, that is a fact, not an insult. This Labour Government, as we know, have also committed to lowering migration. We do not know by how much or when, so I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.

The hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out that spousal and partner visas accounted for only 5% of visas issued last year, but 58,000 people is still a huge number, and it is only our—to quote the Prime Minister—“sky-high” level of overall migration that makes it seem small. In fact, it is almost as much as the entire cumulative net migration to Britain for the 25 years leading up to 1997. In the past four years, more people have moved to the UK under a spousal visa than live in Exeter, Ipswich or Blackpool, and that number is rising sharply. There is some indication that, as the previous Government tightened the rules around dependants and salary thresholds for work visas, people turned to the family route instead. Numbers in the second quarter of 2024 were up a third on the same time in 2023 and were four times as high as in the second quarter of 2022.

It is worth remembering that any and every Briton can marry any foreign citizen who can get a visa here. This country has issued some 5 million visas in the past five years, so the system is hardly stringent. The question is not, “Should British citizens be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK?” It is, “Does it benefit the country as a whole for British citizens on lower salaries to bring foreign spouses here who are unable to get a visa any other way?” By definition, those spouses fall outside the already excessively broad conditions that we have set for being able to come to this country in their own right. I hope it is some comfort to the constituent of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) to hear that there is no minimum income requirement if a spouse is disabled or on personal independence payment.

The hon. Members for Stroud, for Sheffield Central and for North Ayrshire and Arran reminded us that those coming here have no immediate right to welfare support. That implies that there are no costs to that migration, but that is wrong. After five years, a person who has come here on a family visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else, and that costs money. The salary threshold exists because people who move to this country—even those who are spouses of citizens—must be able to sustain themselves financially within their family, or the whole system will fall to pieces, even more than it already has.

[Ayoub Khan]

On the point about what a spouse costs the state in terms of public services, surely the income generated by the working spouse would mean that they are not entitled to receive benefits of any kind.

[Katie Lam]

As I just explained, if the person has been here for five years and applies for indefinite leave to remain, and it is granted—as almost all indefinite leave to remain applications are—they are entitled to full welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else the state provides to its citizens.

That point about indefinite leave to remain is especially relevant to family visas. Ten years after arrival, only 7%, or one in 14, of those who come here on student visas, and 21%, or one in five, of those who came on work visas, have ILR. For family visas, it is 83%, or five out of every six people. That is why the Migration Advisory Committee’s initial impact assessment of the policy found £500 million in welfare cost savings and £500 million more in public service savings from the introduction of the £18,000 minimum income requirement, and that was when far fewer people were using that route to come here.

But the cost-benefit analysis that counts is not that of the Migration Advisory Committee, but that of the British people. They want mass migration to end, and they are sick of broken promises. The numbers must come down across the whole system. The last Government were therefore right to introduce this reform, and it does not bode well that this Prime Minister, for all his talk, decided at the first opportunity to back out of it.

[Dr Opher]

Will the hon. Lady say whether the policy of punitively attacking families was successful in reducing migration? Will she also say what effect immigration has on GDP?

[Katie Lam]

As I have said, the policy was nothing like enough to reduce immigration. It was a step in the right direction, but it was deeply insufficient. Migration has the effect of increasing GDP in raw terms because more people are here but, on GDP per capita, most evidence indicates that it weakens our economy over the medium term.

On this reform and the many others required to our migration system, the Government must make difficult decisions. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses, or the cost of the public service workforce. But that is the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain fully committed to bringing down migration? Can she confirm exactly what that means, by how much they will bring down the numbers and when, and that the Government understand that it must happen—indeed, can only happen—where it involves making hard and upsetting choices for the good of our country? With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain this policy? If they will not make that commitment today, can they at least commit to the fundamental principle behind it—that those who come here, or bring others here, should be able to support themselves financially and not represent a net cost to the state over the long term? Does the Minister therefore agree that the salary threshold should increase to whatever level is necessary to ensure that that is the case?

Finally, I am conscious that those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain are then able to sponsor a spouse. Can the Minister tell us how many migrants on skilled worker visas, care worker visas and shortage occupation lists—I believe that amounts to 2 million visas since the start of 2021—the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? How many spousal visa applications does the Department then expect to receive from those people? Further, based on demographic, level of income and number of dependants, what do the Government expect that to cost? What discussions are being held between the Home Secretary, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on how these pressures will be met?