Immigration and Nationality Application Fees
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for securing this debate on immigration and nationality application fees. I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion today. I welcome any opportunity to hear the views of the House on this subject, even if we come from differing points of view.
It has been an interesting debate. I am in no doubt from the contributions made about the strength of feeling. While I will respond to the points raised today, before I do, it might be helpful to set out the current landscape for the fees we charge for visa, immigration and nationality services.
As was touched on by my SNP shadow, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the Immigration Act 2014 was approved by Parliament under the coalition, during the time when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) was in the Cabinet. It sets out the governing factors that must be given regard to and are the only matters that can be taken into account when setting fee levels. These are: the costs of administering the service; benefits that are likely to accrue to the applicant on a successful outcome; the cost of operating other parts of the immigration system; the promotion of economic growth; fees charged by or on behalf of Governments of other countries for comparable functions; and any international agreement.
In setting fees, it is important to emphasise the Home Office cannot set or amend fees without obtaining the approval of Parliament. That ensures there are checks and balances in place and that there is full parliamentary oversight of the fees regime, in addition to debates such as that we are having today. Immigration and nationality fees are set within the limits specified by the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which includes the maximum fee levels that can be charged on each application type or service. That is laid in Parliament and is subject to affirmative resolution procedures.
Individual fee levels are calculated in line with managing public money principles and the powers provided by the Immigration Act 2014. Specific fees are set out in regulations, which are then presented to Parliament and are subject to the negative procedure. The powers agreed by Parliament in 2014 bring benefits to the broader immigration and citizenship system and to the UK in the form of effective and secure border and immigration functions, reduced funding from general taxation and promotion of economic growth.
I turn to the issue that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch started with—the simplification and the linked parts of the settlement requirements. As she may be aware, I have recently written to the Home Affairs Committee following a meeting with We Belong, which was a useful opportunity to explore with them their experiences of the current system.
Following the Law Commission report on simplification of the immigration rules in 2020, the Home Office is in the process of looking to simplify the immigration rules. As part of that, we are looking at reviewing the rules on settlement and when people qualify for it. We are examining how we could improve the path to settlement for this particular group of young people. Having met them, I recognise the concerns and the wider impact of being placed on what is effectively an 11-year path to citizenship, allowing 10 years to get to permanent settlement—indefinite leave to remain—and then a year free of immigration restrictions to apply for British citizenship, having received indefinite leave to remain. From what we are hearing, and from looking at the process, we believe that too many are ending up on the 10-year route and that is something we want to look at as part of a process of simplifying the rules and requirements.
We are also clear that there are areas where we should simplify the rules to ensure that there are fewer instances where a lawyer needs to be paid for support in the process, which is a cost that we know people face. I know there are some strong views across the House on this issue, and that has been shown today. I look forward to discussing them further when we look to bring forward our proposals.
It is not just in the settlement group specifically that we are looking to simplify the impact people face. Those who have been following the changes to the rules over the last year may have seen things such as the following. On the student route, if those reapplying have been supporting themselves financially without recourse to public funds for 12 months or more, we do not now ask them to prove it as part of their next application. They can do that, having done it visibly. We have changed the English language qualifications, ending a position that was rather bizarre. Someone who went to a state school and had achieved, say, an A grade at GCSE English language or even an A in A-Level English literature was then asked to pass a secure English language test. We are starting to reform some of our rules to look at the wider impacts.
A particularly interesting one, which I am quite keen on, is looking towards the reuse of biometrics and how we capture biometrics. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set out quite well exactly what a biometrics appointment can mean, and not just for those looking to make a reapplication for leave to remain here in the UK, but sometimes for those looking to get secure entry clearance. An example highlighted to me was of a couple of cultural performers who were Aboriginal Australians. Thankfully, they came within our generous visitor route provisions for the performance they were going to make. Had they been coming for slightly longer, the most expensive part of their visa application would have been the trip from the outback to their nearest visa application centre to give us their fingerprints and facial biometrics.
To reassure Members, we are looking to make a change. The first step is to look at increasing the amount of biometric reuse in our system. That means people can reapply using the fingerprints and facial images they gave in a previous application. The second part is looking at how we can remotely capture biometrics from those who are making applications for the first time. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland may wish to know that, for example, the vast majority of EEA nationals applying to our skilled worker route will be able to supply the biometrics using an app on their smartphone to check the chip on their passport without visiting a visa application centre.
As some may have picked up, last month we launched an enhancement to the settlement route for British nationals overseas and their households ordinarily resident in Hong Kong by allowing a fully digital application route. This is the first time we have done that for non-EEA nationals, and it allows many Hong Kong special administrative region and, we believe, virtually all British national overseas passport holders the ability to apply from home if they qualify for that route.
Mr Carmichael
I am enormously encouraged to hear what the Minister says, and it does sound like common sense. But it does all sound distant. In the meantime, can we not just get machines for enrolment and biometrics in Kirkwall and Lerwick?
Kevin Foster
It is not that far distant. We are already allowing people to reuse biometrics, and we are looking to lay some regulations fairly soon. In fact, we had a briefing the other day. I would be very happy to arrange a briefing for the right hon. Member on where we are taking this work. I would say that it builds on the EU settlement scheme, to which, as he will be aware, the vast majority have applied from the comfort of their own home, using a smartphone for about 15 to 20 minutes. We are building on that. It is already with us today and it will be being expanded. We are hoping, for example, all EEA nationals applying into economic migration and study routes will soon be doing so, if they need to, from home. Again, this builds on what we have done with the EU settlement scheme. It is happening.
I appreciate that there is inconvenience for those having to still use the existing system, but it is one that we are looking to quite rapidly roll out over the coming years, ahead of making all status digital by the end of 2024. This is something that, hopefully, the right hon. Member’s constituents will start seeing the benefit of, particularly because biometric readers do not present some of the challenges that he will appreciate come with capturing biometrics for the first time in a global context.
Let me move onto the issue of child citizenship, which I am conscious that a number of Members raised today. I am aware of the great strength of feeling on this issue across the House. As some Members referenced, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment that the Home Office had not demonstrated compliance with its duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in setting the child registration fee—although, to be clear, the court did not strike down the regulations. We are currently carrying out a section 55 assessment to inform a review of the fee. While it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on or predict the outcome of that assessment, including whether the fee currently charged will change, we are taking prompt steps in the light of that judgment to complete the assessment.
It is important to emphasise that becoming a UK citizen is not a specific requirement to enable individuals to live, study and work in the UK and to benefit from many of the public services appropriate to a child or a young adult, most of which come with indefinite leave to remain.
The Home Office ensures that an application can be made for the fee to be waived for certain human rights-based claims for leave to remain, including where the fee is unaffordable or where an individual or family could be rendered destitute on paying the fee. That ensures that the appropriate status can be secured to access any public services required.
Meg Hillier
The Minister talked about prompt steps on the section 55 assessment, but what is his definition of “prompt” and when might we expect a result? Waivers are still very complex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) highlighted, and the process needs a lot of legal support. Many people do not want to go through that regime for fear of failure and in case it jeopardises their wider applications. Is the Minister also looking at the whole approach to fee waivers?
Kevin Foster
I appreciate that, as a former Home Office Minister, the hon. Lady might think that “soon”, “nearly” and “shortly” can have different meanings—I can see you smiling as well, Mr McCabe. We are concerned about this, and the hon. Lady will appreciate that we need to make sure we do it correctly and properly, so we will not simply chuck out a timetable from the Dispatch Box today. However, as I say, we are progressing and looking to promptly respond to the court judgment.
It might be helpful if I come on to fees and exceptions, the process of which was raised by numerous hon. Members. To be clear, the Home Office has always provided for exceptions to the need to pay application fees for leave to remain in specific circumstances. The exceptions ensure that the Home Office’s immigration and nationality fees structure complies with our international obligations, such as in relation to refugees, and wider Government policy, such as the protection of spouses from domestic abuse and the protection of vulnerable children.
The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked whether we have looked at fee waivers in recent times, and we have. We recently broadened the fee waiver policy to ensure that considerations of affordability and prospect of destitution are taken into account when assessing applications. The overseas fee waiver policy is also being revised to include an assessment of the criterion of affordability for specified applications under the article 8/human rights route. The revised policy is expected to be in place from August this year. In the meantime, we will consider urgent applications for an overseas fee waiver, although I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate that with the strong limits on international travel at the moment, the number of people potentially travelling is much lower, for reasons beyond immigration.
In addition, we have also introduced a waiver that will allow for fees to be waived in exceptional circumstances, providing the Department with more flexibility in circumstances where a number of individuals have been significantly impacted by circumstances beyond their control, rather than having to assess each case individually for the fee waiver where there is a group that needs to be accommodated.
Various Members raised the immigration health surcharge. We were clear in our manifesto that it is right that all who may benefit from NHS healthcare have made a contribution to it in line with their immigration status. We recognise that although some who migrate to the UK will pay tax and national insurance contributions from arrival, they will not on average have made the same contribution to the NHS that most UK nationals and permanent residents have made or will make over their working lives. It is therefore fair to require them to make an up-front and proportionate contribution to the NHS, the cost of which compares quite favourably with the type of medical insurance or healthcare charges that those migrating to other countries may face.
The hon. Lady rightly said it is hard to make a direct comparison. For example, many countries, including in Europe, do not provide the comprehensive level of free-at-the-point-of-need healthcare that the national health service here in the UK provides, including to those who have what we deem as a temporary migration status.
We can make a quick comparison. For example, New Zealand requires international students to take out a form of health insurance. Ireland charges for visits to A&E where attendance is without a referral letter from a doctor—of course, there are no charges for urgent and emergency care here in the UK—or charges to see a family doctor and has some hospital charges. Non-EU international students in Ireland are not covered for free medical attention off campus and must have their own private health insurance. And that is to leave aside examples such as the United States of America, where, as all of us recognise, the cost of health insurance to obtain provision that is not even close to what the NHS provides is extreme.
Again, we believe that it is appropriate that this system is in place, although we of course have, with the introduction of the health and care visa and the refunds policy, looked to exempt those who work on the frontline of health and social care, in recognition that their contribution is made through working in such roles.
The Government remain committed to maintaining support for the vulnerable who come into contact with the immigration system and ensuring that they are treated fairly and humanely. By setting fees at the level at which we do and by putting the onus to pay on those who benefit from our services, we reduce the burden on the Exchequer and the wider taxpayers of this country. To be clear, the Home Office does not make a profit from application fees. Fees account for about 70% of the cost of operating the border, immigration and citizenship system, with funding still required from the taxpayer more widely to support the system. Decisions on how the system is funded are complex and require several factors to be carefully balanced to ensure that we can maintain an effective immigration system. In making those decisions, we must also, of course, be mindful of the lessons learned from the Windrush scandal.
Immigration fees have, in the main, remained static now for some time; the last increases were in April 2019. In addition, the Government have introduced comprehensive measures to support people and businesses, including wide-ranging financial support, throughout the global pandemic. Many were available to people working in the country, even with their migration status, given that they were not classed as public funds. For example, the furlough scheme could be used to support someone working on, for example, a skilled worker visa.
As we go forward, the Home Office is committed to playing its part as the world recovers from the devastation of the global coronavirus pandemic. As I touched on earlier, we have introduced the health and care visa. We have also introduced changes to the minimum income and adequate maintenance requirement for those applying to enter or remain in the UK on the basis of their family or private life, so they are not disadvantaged if their income has been affected by the impact of the coronavirus. For example, with those on furlough, we consider them, for immigration assessment purposes, as if they were on 100% of their salary, even if they are receiving only 80% under the furlough scheme. In addition, we have introduced a new points-based system, which we believe is firmer, fairer and works in the interests of the UK, alongside the benefits that simplification of the rules can bring, as I outlined earlier.
We recognise that immigration fees will always be a subject for debate, but they play a vital role in ensuring that we have an effective border and immigration system. We are committed to keeping fees for visa, immigration and nationality services under review, including by taking account of the issues raised in this and previous debates on this matter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Home Office officials meet weekly with the Northern Ireland Strategic Migration Partnership to discuss intake, accommodation and other operational matters relating to asylum accommodation. That is supplemented by formal monthly meetings with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Belfast City Council, the voluntary and communities sector, public health colleagues and the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna [V]
Asylum seekers in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged by a lack of parity in specialist services such as trauma counselling and legal advice, but instead of plugging these gaps, this Secretary of State seems obsessed with introducing ever more punitive and dehumanising policies in her approach to dealing with people fleeing persecution. We have seen the outworkings of offshore processing in Australia, which cost lives and hundreds of millions of pounds; it was a human rights disaster. Will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm that the Department is not pursuing plans to use third countries as dumping grounds? Will the Government instead commit to establishing safe and legal routes, and housing with dignity those who need asylum in the UK?
Kevin Foster
It is disappointing to hear the tone of the hon. Lady’s question, given that the Belfast City Council area is the only part of Northern Ireland to act as a dispersal area. Securing suitable accommodation relies on local communities taking part. Perhaps she may wish to reflect on what more action could be taken by councils where the Social Democratic and Labour party has a presence to match her words.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
During the pandemic, the number of accommodated asylum seekers has increased, because we have not been able to move people on from accommodation and continuing claims. That means we have needed to secure contingency accommodation options, including two Ministry of Defence sites. We await the inspector’s full report on contingency accommodation, which will lay in Parliament alongside the Department’s response after his inspection is concluded.
Catherine West
Many constituents have been in touch about the unhygienic conditions at Napier barracks, which risk spreading covid. I understand that the Home Secretary told the Select Committee that she had been following guidance, yet that seems to be the opposite of what Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group said. It stated that there were
“too many people housed in each block to allow adequate social distancing and to prevent the risk of spread of infection”.
Will the Minister once and for all decide that barracks are simply super-spreader venues that should not be used for anyone, let alone vulnerable asylum seekers?
Kevin Foster
We expect the highest standards from our providers and have instructed them to make improvements following the interim report from the independent chief inspector. In future, a core part of avoiding the pressures that result in the need for contingency accommodation will be fixing our broken asylum system, so that decisions are fair, prompt and firmer, and those whose claims are not genuine can be removed more easily.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
The Home Secretary said to the Select Committee that
“advice around dormitories and the use of the accommodation was all based on Public Health England advice”.
However, the inspection report reveals that Public Health England had advised that opening
“dormitory-style accommodation at Napier was not supported by current guidance”.
Ministers have claimed that the barracks are
“good enough for the armed services and they are certainly more than good enough for people…seeking asylum.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 10.]
However, the report says that they are “impoverished, run-down and unsuitable”. When will those statements be corrected, and, more importantly, why did the Home Office not grasp that the use of dormitory accommodation in the middle of a pandemic was utterly reckless?
Kevin Foster
I note the hon. Member’s points, but I have already outlined that we expect the highest standards from providers and have instructed them to make improvements. A core part of being able to end the use of contingency accommodation in hotels and barracks is having more options and locations for dispersed accommodation. Sadly, Glasgow is the only location currently providing it in Scotland. Part of the solution might be for his council in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to agree to be next on the list—something I hope he will reflect positively on.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is well and good for the Minister to ask providers to make improvements, but it is a blindingly obvious fact that whatever is done with dormitory accommodation will not protect against coronavirus. I agree that to fix asylum accommodation, local authorities must have the powers and the funding they need for the job. The Home Affairs Committee has said that several times. If the Home Office agrees to do that, instead of launching the horrendous large-scale warehousing of vulnerable people, more local authorities will get on board and I will, indeed, encourage it. Will the Home Office make sure local authorities get the powers and the funding they need?
Kevin Foster
We can see from the contribution Glasgow makes that a range of support is already available. As I say, we want to end the use of contingency accommodation. It is just that—contingency. As the pressures have reduced, we have moved away from using the Penally site, for example. However, as has been touched on, the solution is for more areas to come forward, because we need local councils to back up some of what they call for with action.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
The independent inspector’s report states very clearly that
“once one person was infected a large-scale outbreak was virtually inevitable.”
In addition, the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group inspection report on Napier confirmed that some communal areas were cleaned just once a week; that staff were expected to sleep three to a room; and that there were people with pre-existing vulnerabilities, including diabetes, leukaemia and tuberculosis, accommodated there. The public health advice never supported the use of dormitories, so why is Napier barracks still open?
Kevin Foster
As I have already outlined, we have instructed our providers to make improvements, and we want to reduce the use of contingency accommodation through fixing our broken asylum system. I am sure many will be interested to note the Labour party’s sudden interest in, and enthusiasm for, securing improvements at Napier barracks now that they are no longer being used by our armed forces.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
On 31 January, we launched a bespoke immigration route for British national overseas status-holders and their households, allowing them to come to the UK to live, work and study on a pathway to British citizenship. On 23 February, we also launched a fully digital application process, which will allow many applicants to apply from home using a smart device.
Bob Seely [V]
I congratulate the Home Secretary and her Ministers on the excellent work with Hong Kong BNOs, and long may it continue. On the wider point of asylum, may I thank the Secretary of State and her excellent ministerial team for the much-needed reforms to the asylum system that they are introducing, which will make the asylum system significantly fairer to the British people? These changes cannot come soon enough.
Kevin Foster
We appreciate my hon. Friend’s warm endorsement of the work done to create this route, which will give many millions the opportunity to make their home here in our United Kingdom, if they decide that that is the right choice for them and their family. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and with local councils and the devolved Administrations, to ensure a warm welcome across our United Kingdom for those who arrive here under the new settlement route.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I remind everyone that Mr Speaker has stated that Members should wear masks in Committee, except when speaking. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could send their speaking notes by email, if at all possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Codes of Practice and Transit Code of Practice) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this type of Committee for the second week running, Mrs Miller. I wish the Committee—especially my good friend the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), the shadow Minister—a happy St Patrick’s day.
The order will update our existing codes of practice for police powers under the Extradition Act 2003, and will introduce a new code of practice for non-UK extradition transit.
I will deal first with the codes covering the police powers. These revised codes of practice govern the way in which police use their powers under part 4 of the 2003 Act. They relate to search and seizure, applications for warrants and production orders, entry to premises, and the treatment of detained persons after arrest in extradition cases. The updated codes take account of changes that have been made to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice—commonly known as the PACE codes—on which extradition codes of practice are based.
The update codes also incorporate necessary changes brought about by the new power of arrest granted in the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020, which, as Members may recall, was passed by the House last year with widespread support. The codes of practice currently in use were published in September 2011. The changes therefore bring the codes fully up to date, providing operational clarity for policing. Amendments have also been made to set out more clearly the procedural rights for individuals on arrest and throughout the subsequent extradition proceedings.
The code of practice for non-UK extradition transit will provide the basis for transit through the United Kingdom in extradition cases. That will enable the UK to fulfil certain treaty obligations, including those established as part of the new surrender arrangements with the European Union. Extradition transit occurs when a country allows an individual who has been extradited to pass through its territory, while remaining in police custody throughout, when a direct route between the countries concerned by the extradition request is not possible, or other reasons make it undesirable.
For clarity, if the order is approved by Parliament, the codes will be brought into operation on 1 May 2021. I hope that I have clearly set out the purpose of the two codes, which I commend to the Committee.
Kevin Foster
I thank the shadow Minister for the overall constructive tone of the comments that he has just made, and for the general support that he provides as shadow Minister to work in this area. We agree that people who have committed serious crimes that would be crimes in the United Kingdom should not escape to our shores as a way to avoid justice and facing cases that they are rightfully being asked to answer in foreign jurisdictions.
I will respond to the three specific questions that the hon. Gentleman asks. On the first one, I am happy to provide slightly more detail in writing. I can provide some reassurance that, in many cases, the codes of practice are very similar to the codes of practice under PACE. There is a lot of similarity, and in many cases the police would normally follow those as a default if there were any uncertainty about things such as legal access, the position with lawyers, and of course the very important principle of legal privilege and people being able to access legal advice during a process where potentially their liberty may be on the line.
On the operational positions with the European Union, our initial feedback is that they appear to be working fairly well. For clarity, those under the former European arrest warrant were carried over into the new system, and surrender requests have been issued under the new system. Our understanding from police operational colleagues is that they are working fairly well; of course, it is too early to have published detailed figures and analysis. I am sure that the shadow Minister will accept that we need to have had a period with them in place, and particularly a period without a global pandemic, which is inherently reducing people’s ability to travel and therefore to attempt to come to or leave the UK, if they are wanted for an offence.
The shadow Minister will be aware that some EU states have fundamental bars on the extradition of their own nationals beyond the European Union. I have placed in the Library the list of countries that have given us those notifications. We continue to engage with them, but to be clear we do not have a principle of reciprocity. We believe quite firmly as a Government that if our nationals have a case to answer in a friendly democracy on a matter that would be an offence here in the UK, and we are satisfied that it is not a political crime or charge, they should go to that country and answer that case.
The shadow Minister rightly highlighted the new provisions that allow police officers to arrest someone where there is evidence that they are wanted for a serious crime by one of our key international partners, certified by the National Crime Agency. Again, we very much appreciated his support during the process for that legislation. As he will know, there have been incidents where a police officer with access to Interpol and certified alerts encountered someone here in the UK and, because of a loophole in the law, could not immediately detain them pending a formal request for extradition of that person being made—in one case, that resulted in a child sex offender literally being able to walk away from the police, even though they were wanted in a friendly jurisdiction.
Those measures are starting and they are working. Police officers already had the information that they needed on their systems. The best way of putting it is that it has cleaned up and made much simpler the process of quickly bringing someone into custody if they are wanted. For the benefit of the Committee, I should say that the countries that it affects are effectively our Five Eyes partners. They are the main ones that we have designated so far, and we could of course designate more friendly democratic countries whose criminal justice systems we are satisfied operate independently of any political or other concerns.
Finally, it is worth putting on the record that the two orders do not extend or change in any way the matters for which someone can be extradited from this country. To again reassure the Committee, we would permit transit only where it is between countries to which we would usually extradite. The Committee will be aware that we do not agree extradition to all countries in the world, given our concerns about human rights.
Kevin Foster
We are not proposing to do a trade deal with one or two countries, that is for sure. To reassure the Committee, we would not allow transit if, for example, the death penalty may be an issue, such as in the United States. We would seek our normal death penalty assurances if transit were happening through the United Kingdom, or for matters that were not crimes within the United Kingdom.
I think that this has been a productive session, and we look forward to getting the measures in place on 1 May.
Question put and agreed to.
Release under Investigation: Metropolitan Police
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) for securing the debate. It is always a pleasure to respond to a fellow Blue Fox, and to have a chance to set out the Government’s latest thinking on RUI.
My right hon. Friend spoke quite a bit about the use of RUI by the Metropolitan Police Service. Yes, it is the highest user, as the largest force. However, the statistics for 2017-18 show a discrepancy in the percentage use following an arrest. For example, in some forces the rate is nearer 20%. For the Metropolitan police it is about 37%. In the force with the highest rate it is nearer to 60%. Clearly, discrepancies in the use of the process are producing such a contrast; and it is not driven by such issues as rural versus urban forces, or metropolitan versus county forces. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police have the powers they need to protect the public and to ensure the welfare of vulnerable victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, but it is clear that something needs to change in this area.
The process overall has been raised as an issue in the debate, and it is something that we are looking to reform and put right. Last week, the Lord Chancellor introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and it will hopefully receive its Second Reading later today. The Government are using this opportunity to reform pre-charge bail and improve wider confidence in the criminal justice system with the Bill’s wider provisions. It might be helpful if I say a bit more about how the Government see the context behind the reforms.
As my hon. Friend identified, the Government made changes to pre-charge bail through the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to address concerns that suspects were being left on pre-charge bail for long periods of time while also being placed under conditions that severely restricted their liberty. In some cases, they went far beyond the concept of having to attend a police station to renew bail; some were on onerous bail conditions for very long period of time. In some cases, those individuals were eventually told they would face no further action, following years of being on those restrictions.
My hon. Friend rightly highlights some similarities and crossover into RUI, where someone does not have clarity on where they are going. To address that, in terms of pre-charge bail, the Government introduced statutory timescales at which the progress of investigations could be reviewed, and further bail periods required authorisation by the appropriate rank in the force concerned. The changes also introduced judicial oversight into the process to ensure that pre-charge bail was being used appropriately and any restrictions were proportionate to the circumstances faced. It has now become clear—my hon. Friend gave some useful information on this—that some of the changes have led to unintended consequences. In some cases, the police have released suspects under investigation rather than on pre-charge bail. There are a couple of sides to that and why we feel reform is important.
While the 2017 Act changes were intended to reduce the number of suspects being placed on pre-charge bail for lengthy periods of time, it was also not intended that victims could be left with inadequate protection—the other side of this—in the absence of conditions that could be applied. Similarly, we do not want people waiting for outcomes for lengthy times. Too often, we have heard accounts of suspects who have been arrested on suspicion of very high harm offences, such as domestic abuse, have been released under investigation rather than placed on bail, where sufficient conditions would be in place to protect victims and witnesses. As my hon. Friend may be aware, that was tragically highlighted in the case of Kay Richardson, who was murdered by her estranged husband following his release under investigation even though there was evidence of previous allegations of domestic abuse. That is simply not acceptable. The first priority of a Government is to protect their citizens. That is why we must change the law, and we are seeking to do so with—I hope—my hon. Friend’s support on Second Reading later today.
Aside from release under investigation not providing adequate protection for victims, as he rightly highlighted, it has often left suspects in limbo, given that the process is not subject to any timescales. Much like pre-charge bail before 2017, suspects are being placed under investigation for lengthy periods of time with no real sense of how investigations are progressing. At the same time, as I said, victims are left unprotected, given that conditions cannot be applied to release under investigation. We believe that we need to put that right for all parties involved.
The Government launched a public consultation in 2020 to understand how we could create a more effective pre-charge bail regime that would balance the needs to safeguard the public with the rights of individuals who have been arrested on suspicion of offences. As has been touched on, we obtained views from law enforcement, members of the public, charities, the legal profession and others to enable us to create a system that will protect the most vulnerable but also ensure that individuals are not effectively left in limbo during an investigation, with the obvious consequences that my hon. Friend pointed to. Allegations of some offences—not petty offences—can very much hang over someone and really affect their life. They may not be able to move forward or perhaps change job. As he said, there is an impact on career and employment as well. We are conscious that RUI cannot just be a file that cases are popped in because they are difficult. If it is to be used, that must mean that a case is still being progressed.
As already mentioned, reforms will be brought into effect by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and I very much thank my hon. Friend for the additional thoughts he has provided today to help us take that work forward. Our proposed changes will encourage the police to use pre-charge bail where it is necessary and, crucially, proportionate to do so. They will also require the consideration of key risk factors in the decision-making process, which we are putting into statute because of what the conditions are. Officers will need to consider factors such as the need to safeguard victims of crime and to safeguard the public when determining whether to release an individual on bail. We expect this to lead to a significant decrease in the use of release under investigation.
We also recognise that there is a need to bolster victims’ confidence in the system. That is why we are inserting a new duty that would require the police to inform the victim of the conditions on suspects, and seek the victim’s views on such conditions where it concerns their safeguarding—let me be very clear, it is their safeguarding. This duty will also apply when there is any variation of these conditions during the course of the suspect’s bail. We do believe it is crucial that victims have the opportunity to provide input or information when key decisions are made that could affect their safety.
To put it the other way around, again, to ensure a just system, police investigations should continue to be conducted as quickly and efficiently as possible. We are clear that we will look to issue much more rigorous national statutory guidance via the College of Policing about the use of release under investigation. Again, we are conscious that long periods of limbo are not acceptable in the criminal justice system. RUI is not a position that forces can just put somebody in: they need to be clear about the reason why they have released the person under investigation, rather than deciding to take no further action, or charging and allowing a court to resolve the matter.
We will be more widely amending the timescales on pre-charge bail periods so that they better reflect police investigation lengths, because we recognise that the current 28-day first period of bail has created challenges for the police, and we have engaged with them at every stage to get this right. I know that hon. Members will appreciate the changing landscape of criminality, investigation methods and tools. It has evolved over recent years, particularly examining digital chains of evidence and establishing forensics, which may take slightly more time but can still be vital in securing prosecutions. Again, we are conscious that there is a need to balance those things while making sure that the process is moving forward. We believe that the future guidance will be far more effective at delivering these outcomes than the current position is.
As I say, we will also look to work with the police sector to improve the data available on pre-charge bail and release under investigation so that we can much more effectively monitor its use and the effectiveness of this system, ensuring justice both for victims and, at the same time, for those who have been accused of a crime and have a right to know that the police will deal with it as efficiently and effectively as they can. As my hon. Friend has touched on, there is a presumption of innocence in the system, and people should not have their life left on hold without the investigation progressing.
Sir David Amess
I very much hope to catch Mr Speaker’s eye in today’s debate. If I am hearing my hon. Friend correctly, the Bill that we are dealing with today will tackle everything surrounding RUIs. Could he also comment on Operation Midland, because I do intend to raise these matters on the Floor of the House later?
Kevin Foster
The Bill will reform the pre-charge bail process and remove some of the disincentives against it that we now believe are inappropriate, or have created unintended consequences. RUI is a process that is not actually set out in law and statute, so the Bill would not change that; however, we are clear that we want to issue much more rigorous guidance on its use. The figures I gave are the differential between forces’ arrests: some are about 20%, and one is 60%. That tells us that there is a need for much more rigorous guidance on how this process is used, and also what information should be provided to the defence so that they know the progress of the case. I do not think I can do justice to Operation Midland in about 30 seconds, but I am sure that the Minister responding later will be able to do so.
We believe that the changes will allow for further protection of victims, clearer timescales for suspects, and more confidence in the system among the police. I very much thank my hon. Friend for having brought this useful debate to the Chamber today.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they can only sit in the places that are clearly marked, that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee, unless, of course, you are speaking, and that Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to Hansard’s email address.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The regulations amend the Marriage Act 1949 and will reform the way in which marriages are registered in future. They can be moved thanks to the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc.) Act 2019, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has joined the Committee today, so successfully piloted through Parliament.
The regulations enable the introduction of a schedule system for the registration of marriages in England and Wales by allowing powers to reform some quite elderly primary legislation. For background, a schedule system is already in place in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. When civil partnerships were introduced in England and Wales in 2005, the opportunity was taken to modernise the registration process and use a schedule-based system.
For clarity, couples will sign a marriage schedule at their marriage ceremony instead of a paper marriage register, and all marriages will be registered by registration officers in a single electronic marriage register. That will remove the requirement for the 84,000 paper registers currently used in registry offices and around 30,000 religious buildings across England and Wales.
The regulations provide the opportunity to modernise not only the registration process from a technical point of view, but the marriage entry itself to allow for the details of both parents of the couple to be recorded instead of just the father’s name and occupation, as is currently the case. Moving to a schedule-based system is the most cost-effective way to achieve the change and will make the system of registration more secure and efficient.
The regulations also amend the seldom used Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts 1915 and 1916 so that they no longer apply in England and Wales. They also make a consequential amendment under section 5 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordinations (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 to amend the 1949 Act to specify the evidence that must be provided by an individual when giving a notice of marriage for immigration purposes.
Much of the regulations relate to the technical process of switching to a digital register, but the most talked-about aspect will be the change to what is actually placed on the register of marriage. The significance is not lost on me as a Minister or personally. When Hazel and I married in June 2017, we sadly could not be joined at the service by my mother or her father as they had both passed away a few years before. My dad and Hazel’s mum could be part of the day by sharing it with us physically. Hazel’s dad was part of it by appearing on the marriage certificate. There was, of course, one person missing. Once the regulations are in force, no one else will be missed out on their children’s wedding day.
Kevin Foster
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for such comprehensive contributions. I welcome the speech from the shadow Minister. It is pleasing to have the Opposition’s support for the regulations. Obviously, the core of what we are looking to do is not a matter of particular contention.
I start with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. We recognise that registers have two roles: one is the day-to-day need for people to prove their status or their identity, and the second is for historical records and genealogical research. I take her point about particular churches or places of worship that rely on volunteers. The quarterly returns process in the Church of England can be quite cumbersome; it is a process first started back in the 19th century.
One reason why we want to move to a digital register is to remove the need to get hold of paper documentation. That leans into wider work to allow statuses to be automatically checked by digital systems talking to each other in public services. The hon. Member will appreciate, given her previous role, that that sounds simple, but there are the challenges of making sure that appropriate data protection is in place, and that records will be accessed for legitimate purposes and with people’s consent.
The concept of a church or a religious building continuing to hold a physical register will disappear. They may well keep their historical records and parish registers, but they will no longer be getting someone to fill out a physical certificate. As we have discussed, we have had some lengthy conversations with the Church of England.
On the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, people will still sign a document on the day. It will be similar to now, in that the priest who celebrates the marriage will take responsibility for sending that document off to be placed on the electronic register.
Dunkerton parish church is in a small rural Dartmoor community, in the west of Devon. Marriages have been conducted there for about 700 years. It has no running water, no electricity and certainly no wi-fi. In order to provide a solution that means people can still get married in that ancient church with a wholly electronic register, we came to an appropriate position with the Church of England, which I understand it is happy with and which is as close to the current position as possible. It makes it clear that for those married in that church, the priest is responsible for sending back the form to the registrar, for it to be entered on to the digital record.
People will not see a particular difference on their wedding day, but they will not sign paper certificates on the day. That is where we need to be clear in our own minds. It is no longer about the paper being the record of the marriage. To be clear, this is about recording the event. The moment of marriage is not when it is entered on to the register; sometimes people can be confused and think that signing the register is the moment that they become married. It is not. The certificate is a record of a marriage that has taken place in the church.
Meg Hillier
Is it possible for people to be provided with a paper document? Some people frame their marriage certificates; they are proud of the moment. Will that be prohibited?
Kevin Foster
Absolutely not. There is nothing to stop that. As the hon. Member will know with baptism, which is not recorded in a secular sense by the GRO, certificates are issued by churches. I think the language on them usually says they are to be used “when the child is presented to the Bishop for confirmation.” That is true in the Anglican tradition and there is nothing to stop that. It will not be a legal document of the marriage, but electronic statuses and transactions are becoming increasingly common for most people, and this will be an easy-to-access digital status when needed—for example, to prove a marriage to a bank or someone else—rather than, necessarily, as the hon. Member says, something that someone might want to have on the wall as a record of their relationship.
Jess Phillips
Just to clarify and potentially answer one of the points, nowadays anything can happen, ceremonially, in a church, or even in a registry office, where I got married; churches can, if they want, still keep old books, make records and keep the history of that church. Nothing in the draft regulations bars that—is that correct?
Kevin Foster
That is correct. The only things churches should not use are the current marriage certificates issued under the Marriage Act 1949. That is the thing that changes. Parish registers, which some Church of England parishes have kept literally since medieval times, can continue to be kept. There is no reason why a church cannot give something to people to mark their marriage there. However, people who attend the wedding perhaps will not see that the form that is signed is then sent by the priest back to the registrar to be entered on to the digital record.
We discussed at some length with the Church of England how we can provide a practical solution. It has thousands of priests and marriage venues that have stood for centuries, where a computer solution cannot realistically be installed in any sense, or even a mobile one, so that details can be directly entered into a digital register. This was the solution that we came to. It seems both fair and reasonable, and to be clear, the Church is perfectly happy with it.
Tim Loughton
On a practical point, many churches have a whole supply of marriage certificates, which may be part of a marriage register book. The Minister quite rightly says that they will effectively have no status post 4 May, because there will be the electronic record, but can they not still be used in place of the voluntary thing to give to the happy couple to frame? They will not have a legal status, but it would be a waste to have to throw them all away, would it not?
Kevin Foster
Once we get beyond 4 May, the paper registers will close. Effectively, certificate books will then need to be returned to the GRO to register the final weddings that have taken place under the previous registration system. It would not be appropriate to issue documentation that once had legal status beyond the point at which it has legal status. The current certificate books that people sign will be required to be returned and to cease being used.
Meg Hillier
The Minister talked just now about proving status to a bank or someone. There is a challenge here. Who has access to the register? What are the cyber-security issues around that and who gives permission for that? I am already married, but if I were to get married after 4 May, would that mean that the Minister could look up my marriage? Who in a bank would have the power to do that? Could it be done only with my permission? What are the data protection controls around this hugely important database, which could be used for all sorts of nefarious reasons, as well as benevolent ones?
Kevin Foster
The hon. Member will know that one reason we are moving to a digital system, away from paper, is that paper is far easier to forge or produce copies of, particularly in the modern era, than in the 19th century, although it has to be said that the register is actually a public document. It is not like the census document, which is kept for 100 years. The registers are actually public and can be consulted, as she will be aware of, given her previous time being responsible for the GRO. I think that we can put that particular concern slightly to one side.
We are also looking at digitising some historical records, to make them far easier to search for those looking to do family history and research. As the hon. Member will know from her time with the GRO, family history, especially discovering dates of marriage, can be quite interesting, particularly when going back to grandparents’ or great-grandparents’ generations. When going through a family tree, someone may discover that the great-grandparents who swore blind they got married in 1919 actually got married in 1920, and then realise that grandad was on his way a couple of months later. There is a general part that we are looking to digitise
Meg Hillier
Forgive me, but this is an important point. There is a difference with a physical register that someone can look at. The register has people’s addresses and the names of their parents, which are security questions when signing into a bank account. Who gives permission for the register to be checked? Is it completely open to the public, or is there some brake on that to ensure that it is not used inappropriately to mine IDs and to be used for nefarious reasons? That is absolutely fundamental.
When we were looking at introducing identity cards, which of course were not introduced, there were huge debates and discussion of detailed legislation about the security of the data and who would give permission to access it. Although this data is already out there, that is not in the same way as being in a parish register, rather than actually online.
Recently, my local authority suffered a major cyber-security attack, and was very much helped by Whitehall to sort it out, but it will take a year to resolve some of the issues, and important data was stolen and put on the dark web. The issues are therefore very serious and pertinent. I hope that the Minister will address that before we pass the draft regulations.
Kevin Foster
First, one of the most common ways of creating identities at the moment is to forge outdated paper certificates, hence why we are keen to move away from paper certificates, which are easily forged and used for nefarious purposes. Clearly, therefore, we want to move to a digital register.
As the Committee may have picked up, another private Member’s Bill is before the House on Friday, relating to birth and death registration where, similarly, we want to move away from the paper certificate process towards a more secure online register as the final arbiter. That is of course out of the scope of the Committee, but it shows the general thrust of the Government’s plans to modernise a pretty outdated system of registration, emphasised not only by the fact that mothers’ details are on marriage certificates but by the process still being heavily rooted in the past.
The position on access to the register will be the same as it is today. I accept that it is slightly different when someone is checking on a computer, rather than walking down to Somerset House, although a lot of that can be done online already, via records already digitised.
To come to some of the other points, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham stated that he cannot see a mention of mothers’ names on marriage certificates. As he will be aware from our long discussions of his private Member’s Bill that is now an Act, a lot of the purpose was to remove much of the specification in primary legislation that we would not put there today. The actual content will be prescribed in regulations made by the Registrar General, with the approval of the Secretary of State. However, the draft regulations to amend primary legislation will remove the more outdated requirements and then allow the new certificate to include mothers’ names and occupations. To be clear, that is where that will be specified finally, but allowing this to go forward will be the core part.
In a couple of other questions, my hon. Friend asked why a Bill that became an Act in late 2019 is being acted upon in 2021. Originally, we were hoping to launch the new system last year. I hope that the Committee will understand why the middle of a global pandemic, when registrars were urgently having to adapt their birth and death registration systems to cope, was widely viewed as not the appropriate time to introduce a brand new system of marriage registration. We would very much have liked to move forward with it last year, but we wholly accepted the points made by the registration system, that the middle of a pandemic was not an appropriate moment. However, with a lot of weddings delayed to this summer due to the impact of the social distancing regulations last year, now is the time to take the new system forward.
Kevin Foster
I will not now, but I will cover in writing the points about the baby loss review and about coroners and stillbirth—that is perhaps a more appropriate way to update my hon. Friend.
With that, I commend the draft regulations, which will finally bring our marriage law into the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Registration of Marriages Regulations 2021.
Changes in Immigration Rules
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
We have made a change to the immigration rules which will open the new graduate route to enable international students to remain in the UK to work, or look for work, for two years (three years for doctoral students) after they have completed their studies. The route will open on 1 July 2021. All international students who have successfully completed a degree (or other qualifying course) at undergraduate level or above at a higher education provider with a track record of compliance, and who have valid student (or tier 4) permission, will be able to apply. The doctorate extension scheme (DES) will close when the graduate route opens. The introduction of this route, which was announced in September 2019, will significantly improve the UK’s offer to international students.
We are making changes to accommodate the launch of the new graduate route. The first change is to expand the definition of a new entrant to include those switching from the graduate route. Time spent in the graduate route will count towards the maximum period of four years for which a person can be considered a new entrant. We are also making a change so those previously on the student or graduate routes, who make a short visit to the UK, do not disqualify themselves from being considered a new entrant.
We are also giving effect to some of the recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee in its review of the shortage occupation list (SOL) in September 2020. We are adding eight occupations in the health and care sector as well as modern language teachers to the UK-wide SOL. We are removing chefs from the SOL, although they will continue to be eligible for the skilled worker route due to the expanded skills threshold.
In addition, we are accepting the recommendation to add deck hands on large fishing vessels and vent chicken sexers, where those occupations meet experience requirements, to the list of occupations which are eligible for the skilled worker route.
We are updating the salary thresholds to include a minimum hourly rate to safeguard against employers who may require employees to work longer hours to make up for the lower rates of pay. We are including a transitional arrangement for those already on the skilled worker route in a job paying less than the minimum (£10.10 per hour) to avoid anyone losing their job as a result of the change.
We are making a change to prevent employers from reducing their skilled worker salaries below the level of tradeable points which have been assessed and awarded by the Home Office. If a sponsor wishes to reduce a salary based on a different set of tradeable points, a new application will be required. This ensures the Home Office has assessed and confirmed that the skilled worker continues to meet the requirement of the route.
We are expanding the academic technology approval scheme to include those coming to the UK under a sponsored work route to work in an occupation which includes postgraduate research in an academic environment, in certain sensitive subjects where an individual’s knowledge could be used in programmes to develop advanced conventional weapon technology, weapons of mass destruction (WMD), or their means of delivery. This change is designed to protect UK research from exploitation and from inadvertently supporting the proliferation of WMD or advanced conventional weapon technologies.
Some adjustments are being made to the EU settlement scheme (EUSS) and the EUSS family permit. These will ensure their continued operability and the full implementation of the citizens’ rights agreements beyond the 30 June 2021 deadline for applications to the EUSS by those EEA citizens and their family members resident in the UK by the end of the transition period. By 31 January 2021, more than 5 million applications to the EUSS had been received and more than 4.5 million grants of status had been issued.
We are making changes to the global talent route to enable applicants who have reached the pinnacle of their careers to bypass the endorsement requirement and instead qualify if they have received a prestigious prize. An initial list of prizes have been identified and agreed by the endorsing bodies for the route based on their expert opinion and represent the leading awards in their respective fields.
Applicants meeting this requirement will not be required to apply for endorsement, which should expedite the application process. In all other aspects, the requirements and conditions applying to individuals relying on a prestigious prize will be consistent with those who qualify using an exceptional talent endorsement, including having a three year qualifying period for settlement and identical conditions applied to their permission.
There are currently two separate schemes to assist current and former locally employed staff (LES) in Afghanistan: the ex-gratia scheme (EGS) and the intimidation policy. The existing intimidation policy is available to any current or former Afghan LES who have been employed directly by the UK Government in Afghanistan since 2001, from the first day of their employment, regardless of their role, job or length of service. This is being replaced with the Afghan relocation and assistance policy (ARAP) for current and former Afghan LES to reflect the changing security situation in Afghanistan and the risk faced by current and former LES there. The EGS will continue to operate without change until the closing date of 30 November 2022 already set out in the immigration rules.
The ARAP moves away from the present policy model which is based on the investigation of alleged cases of intimidation and requires discrete evidence, and into an assessment-oriented approach. This will be grounded in a recognition that the situation in Afghanistan has evolved and poses a latent threat to many current and former LES in particular roles. Other assistance, e.g. internal moves in-country and bespoke security advice, will still be available where appropriate and reflects that not all LES are able or willing to relocate.
An amendment is being made to clarify the grounds for refusal policy intention that permission may only be refused or cancelled on the basis of rough sleeping where the person has repeatedly refused offers of support and engaged in persistent antisocial behaviour.
Finally, a change is being made to Appendix Hong Kong British national (Overseas) which will allow those on the British national (Overseas) route to apply to vary their conditions to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted where they are able to demonstrate they are destitute or at imminent risk of destitution.
[HCWS822]
Draft Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2021
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind hon. Members to observe social distancing. I think everyone is sitting in a place with a tick on it—yes. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if they could receive a copy of your speech at hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Authority to Carry Scheme and Civil Penalties Regulations 2021.
Dr Huq, it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship—and not just when we are campaigning to save whales in Iceland.
The purpose of the regulations, laid under sections 23(2) and 24(7) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, is to give effect to the authority to carry scheme 2021—the 2021 scheme—to make consequential amendments to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 and to revoke the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Authority to Carry Scheme) Regulations 2015. Once given effect, the 2021 scheme will in turn replace and revoke the authority to carry scheme 2015.
Authority to carry is, in effect, the UK’s no-fly scheme. It is operated to prevent certain individuals from travelling to or from the UK when that is necessary in the public interest. The scheme is operated by the National Border Targeting Centre, which processes information about individuals, both passengers and crew, intending to travel to or from the UK. Where an individual is identified who is in a class of persons described in the scheme, the carrier may be refused authority to carry the individual either to or from the United Kingdom. Authority to carry is a key part of the UK’s border security arrangements, preventing individuals, including known terrorists, serious criminals and those subject to sanctions, from being able to travel to the UK.
The 2021 scheme applies to all carriers who have been required by law to provide passenger and crew information before departure. It applies on all international routes to and from the UK, plus routes within the common travel area where advance passenger and crew information is received from a carrier.
The authority to carry scheme has been extremely successful. Since the scheme’s introduction in March 2015, the National Border Targeting Centre has refused carriers authority to carry more than 8,200 individuals seeking to travel to the UK. That has included about 200 individuals excluded from the UK, about 3,300 individuals previously deported from the UK and more than 4,700 individuals using invalid, lost, stolen or cancelled travel documents. It has also included subjects of international travel bans. Those are all individuals who otherwise would have arrived in the UK and been refused leave to enter by Border Force officers. The carrier would then have been required to remove them and, in some cases, meet their detention costs. Some of those individuals, once in the UK, might also have taken the opportunity to challenge their removal, potentially through abuse of our humanitarian protection routes, by submitting spurious claims aimed purely at preventing their removal from the UK.
I hope that, with the description that I have given, the Committee has a full picture of the regulations.
Kevin Foster
May I genuinely thank the shadow Security Minister for the overall tone and constructive nature of his comments? I will respond to some of his questions in writing, to ensure that he receives the detail that he is entitled to ask for. And I know that he will appreciate why we do not have the number of officials in the room today that we would normally have. However, I will give some practical and brief replies to some of his questions.
The regulations certainly have been discussed extensively with UK Border Force; indeed, UK Border Force has been involved in their formulation. As the shadow Minister rightly said, the regulations are a protection for UK Border Force, as it will deal with complex and difficult individuals at the UK border and then arrange for a carrier to remove them from the UK, rather than having to prevent their arrival in the first place.
Of course, the regulations are also a protection in terms of aviation security and security on other modes of transport. Obviously, the general approach of the carriers to this issue has been extremely constructive; they do not want people on their services who may be a threat to the train, ship or plane that is coming to the UK.
Perhaps I can give a little flavour of the nature of the compliance with the measures. I mentioned that more than 8,200 people—I think that figure is right—have been excluded and prevented from travel. With the 2015 regulations to date, when we compiled the figures for the Committee we found that there have been only 51 breaches of the 2015 scheme. And to respond to another of the shadow Minister’s points, 18 penalties have been imposed for non-compliance, which led to total fines of just over £186,000.
We believe it is appropriate that there is a significant financial penalty. The regulations are not about basic immigration failings or not checking someone’s passport. They are about preventing someone who could be an active danger to this country from coming to the UK and people whose presence in the UK would be wholly unconducive to the public good. One person we excluded in September 2019 was a notorious holocaust denier, a US citizen, who had booked a flight to the UK from a European country. They were picked up and the carrier concerned denied boarding.
We will issue updated guidance, and we have already engaged with the carriers. We have made it clear that a lot of this is about updating the fact that we have now left the European Union and EEA nationals now have a different legal position. The guidance makes it clear to the carriers when someone cannot fly, get a train or come to the UK. Where there is passenger information in place, it gives certainty and also takes the decision away from the carrier so that they do not have to get into a debate with someone who has appalling views or who has committed serious crimes. The carrier can be clear that they have been advised by the Home Office that someone cannot travel. The person concerned is then given contact details at the Home Office. For the carriers, there is the advantage of an additional layer of security for their own staff and passengers and customers, and also a firmness about the position.
The renewal period will be confirmed in writing. We have introduced the update slightly earlier, rather than in 2022, to reflect the fact that now that the transition period for free movement rights has ended, we cannot create new ones in terms of coming to the UK for the first time. It is therefore appropriate to update the scheme. To reassure the shadow Minister, we will keep it under constant review. With regard to those who are subject to this system change as people are added to sanctions lists or deported from the UK, the list is constantly updated and we take into account the international situation. For example, if the United Nations imposes a travel ban on someone, the scheme will apply to them.
I hope my response has been helpful. I thank the shadow Minister for the tone of his reply.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster) [V]
Throughout the pandemic we have kept our border measures under constant review, including through regular liaison with the devolved Administrations, given their responsibilities in this policy area. On 27 January, the UK Government announced further action for outbound and inbound passengers to minimise travel across international borders and reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission.
Martin Docherty-Hughes [V]
I am sure I am not the only person on these islands who has been left to wonder why the party that has spent so much of the past five years talking about taking back control of borders seemed to completely fluff the opportunity to do so when there would have been almost unanimous support in the House. Will the Minister advise the House what defence the Prime Minister previously offered to the Cabinet for not closing the border on the Home Secretary’s advice?
Kevin Foster
Given the overall positive engagement that we have had with the Scottish Government in this policy area, it is disappointing to hear the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. In deciding on border measures, the UK Government must take into account a number of factors, including the rather obvious need to keep open key supply lines across the short straits, and routes to and from the Republic of Ireland.
To give some background, since the health measures came in we have conducted more than 3.7 million spot checks of passengers arriving at the border, as part of the new testing requirements, carriers are required to check test results, and a fine of up to £4,000 in England and Northern Ireland and £960 in Scotland and Wales can be levied on passengers who fail to comply with the requirements.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Oral Answers to Questions
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
The new immigration system will deliver a vision of success for the whole of our United Kingdom, as outlined to Members of the Scottish Parliament on Thursday. The key new routes under the points-based system, including the flagship skilled worker route, are already open for applications. The Home Office regularly engages the devolved Administrations, Parliament and Assembly as we take this work forward.
Neale Hanvey [V]
Ending free movement will have a profound negative impact on Scotland’s public services, not least NHS Scotland. Previously, the Home Office team met quarterly with Scotland’s migration Minister, but the last meeting took place in July 2019. Since the Minister took up his post, there have been no further meetings. Why is he repeatedly refusing to have those meetings?
Kevin Foster
From the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I can only conclude that he missed my appearance before the Scottish Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee on Thursday. Perhaps he might find the video online. During the session I outlined several meetings I would be delighted to have with Scottish Cabinet Secretaries and the kettle is on if they want to take me up on the offer.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I find that a fascinating reply, Mr Speaker, because it does not really accord with my understanding of what happened at the meeting to which the Minister refers. The UK Government’s immigration policies threaten to plunge Scotland’s working-age population into decline, to cause serious staffing shortages in key industries such as the farming industry, and to inflict lasting damage on our public services. The Minister has appeared to dismiss these serious concerns and has point blank refused to meet the Scottish Government Minister with responsibility for migration since he came into office under this Prime Minister. Did I correctly understand his previous comment as saying that that position has changed? If so, when is he planning to meet the Scottish Government’s migration Minister?
Kevin Foster
It is unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member appears also to have missed the session, but again, I believe there is a video online—she might find it fascinating—with me giving examples of Scottish Ministers I was prepared to meet to discuss a range of issues. I also gave MSPs examples of how Scotland’s needs are directly shaping the future immigration system for the whole of our UK, including the change to the permit-free festival system directly driven by the needs of Edinburgh international festival. But I suspect the actual focus of this question is, as always from the SNP, pushing separatism, not success for Scotland.
Joanna Cherry
The Minister would do well to appreciate that the SNP represents the majority of voters in Scotland. At the meeting last week that he is referring to, my understanding, from speaking to colleagues, is that he said he would not be meeting what he described as the SNP’s “migration spokesperson”, so can he now put this on the record? Will he meet my colleague and friend, the democratically elected SNP Government’s spokesperson for migration? Will he meet him, as he has refused to do since last summer—yes or no? It is a very simple question; I want a clear yes or no answer.
Kevin Foster
I regularly meet the SNP spokesperson in this place on migration matters for constructive discussions. This Government are going to focus on building a future migration system focused on ensuring that the world’s talent sees Scotland at the heart of our United Kingdom as its natural home. The SNP sees it as an opportunity to ensure that the Scottish Government can always seek to recruit care workers at the legal minimum wage and as a chance to fulfil their ambition to rebuild Hadrian’s Wall and get England to pay for it.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I recognise the importance of the issue. We are looking to continue the seasonal workers pilot into 2021. As the Home Secretary said a few moments ago, we will confirm the numbers shortly, but it is worth remembering that the restrictions on international travel may well affect the number who actually travel, as they did this year.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Highly talented students are often attracted to our universities in the hope that their degree leads to enhanced employability in the UK, yet competitor countries such as Canada and Australia offer longer, and therefore more attractive, post-graduation work visas. Will the Government help our universities to remain competitive by further extending the post-study work visa to three or four years for undergraduate and masters students?
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Kevin Foster Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 1309).
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
For the sake of time, I will refer to the statutory instrument as the consequential amendments SI. Parliament has approved the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, which will end free movement on 31 December at the end of the transition period. The Act represents an important milestone in paving the way for the new points-based immigration system to operate from 1 January 2021 and to deliver our promise to have a single immigration system, which judges people by their talents and skills, not by where their passport comes from. The consequential amendments SI is the next step in ending free movement, and it completes the legislative changes necessary for that historic act. The SI is made under the delegated regulation-making power in section 5 of the 2020 Act, the scope of which was debated extensively in both Houses during its passage, including in the Bill Committee on which many members of this Committee served.
The Government were pleased to share an illustrative text of the SI in early September, and there are only limited changes to it in the version before the Committee today. The SI amends primary and secondary United Kingdom legislation as a consequence of, or in connection with, the provisions in part 1 of the 2020 Act, which end free movement and make provisions for the new status of Irish citizens. It amends legislation relating to immigration, nationality, benefits and services. It also amends devolved matters where changes are required for an immigration purpose to reflect the end of free movement, but not devolved legislation more generally.
As hon. Members will have noted, the SI is rather lengthy given the breadth of amendments to domestic legislation required, based on the number of times free movement has been mentioned in UK legislation during our membership of the European Union of more than 40 years. The effect of the legislative changes is to align the immigration treatment of European economic area citizens and their family members who are not protected by the withdrawal agreement and the UK’s implementation of that agreement with non-EEA citizens under the UK’s immigration system. Once free movement has ended, newly arriving EEA citizens and their family members will be subject to the same UK immigration law as non-EEA citizens; they will need to meet the requirements of the new points-based immigration system set out in the immigration rules made under the Immigration Act 1971. As members of the Committee may know, many of those routes opened for applications last week on 1 December.
The SI provides clear protections for Irish citizens and EEA citizens, and their family members granted status under the EU settlement scheme. It also removes references in domestic legislation to the UK’s membership of the EU and EU-derived law that has been retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, at the end of the transition period.
Most of the changes will come into force at 11pm on 31 December—the end of the transition period—but there are some exceptions; the provision to bring EEA citizens within scope of the immigration skills charge came into force on 1 December to coincide with the opening of the new skilled worker route. That means that the charge will apply to EEA citizens who arrive in the UK from 1 January 2021 onwards under that route, and it is part of ensuring equality of treatment between citizens of the rest of the world and EEA citizens.
Various provisions to bring EEA citizens within the scope of the sham marriage and civil partnership referral investigation system do not come into effect at the end of the transition period. They will come into force on 1 July 2021, after the deadline for applications to the EUSS, at which point it will be easier for the Anglican Church in particular to differentiate between EEA citizens with status under the EUSS and those without. That reflects a range of other provisions that we have in place during the grace period next year before the deadline for applications.
The consequential amendments SI reflects the repeal of free movement at the end of the transition period, as enacted by Parliament’s approval of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. It makes the statute book coherent and terminates arrangements relevant to the operation of free movement law in EU legislation—the latter legislation will no longer be appropriate once free movement has ended—and implements our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. It is an essential step in fulfilling our promise to end free movement and to deliver on the referendum vote. That is something that the Government are determined to do, even if others would rather that the referendum result were ignored.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It would be good to rename my constituency for the benefit of colleagues, but it is good to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I hope you can hear me okay. Colleagues might prefer not to hear me, but I will have my say anyway.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you, Minister.
I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced the regulations. I concur with 99% of what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, had to say. It will be no surprise to the Minister that we, too, oppose the regulations. The SNP very much regrets the end of free movement. We believe that the hostile environment is a disaster. It is important to say that the regulations do not really end free movement; they are about extending the hostile environment. The two do not have to go together.
We have always argued for a declaratory scheme, and we maintain that that would have been a much better approach. However, there is no point going over all that old ground again. We have debated these points a million times and we are where we are. It is incumbent on us all to try to make the arrangements the Government have decided to put in place work as best we can.
When the Minister came before the Home Affairs Committee recently, I think it is fair to say that we had a fairly constructive exchange about how EEA citizens would be able to access the NHS and other public services in various hypothetical scenarios. In that vein, I want to probe him on another four brief scenarios. If he cannot answer the questions today, it would be useful to have the answers in writing. The shadow Minister said that these are very complicated regulations—I will come back to that point in a bit—and I genuinely do not know the answer to all these questions, despite my best efforts.
The first scenario is that in January—in the grace period, but after the transition period—two EEA nationals, an uncle and a niece, who could have applied to the settled status scheme but have not yet done so, go to rent a new property. The uncle is a worker, so his rights are protected by the grace period regulations, but the niece is not and does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. Arguably, she was therefore not exercising her treaty rights prior to the end of the transition period. As I understand it, that means she has no protection under the grace period regulations.
My first question is: is it the case that the worker—the uncle—would be able to rent, but not the niece? I understand that in the past, the Government have said, “We will not ask employers and landlords to make these checks,” but legally speaking, is it the case that the regulations would exclude the niece from the right to rent? Secondly, if they realised that they needed settled status and applied for it, would that situation remain the same, regardless of the fact of their application, until such time as a decision on the application was reached? Similarly, am I right in thinking that the uncle could access homelessness assistance, if he qualified for it—ironically he does not need to because he has the right to rent—whereas the niece could not access it, even though she is the one who would need it because she would struggle to access the right to rent?
The second scenario is the same as the first, except that it takes place in July, which is outside the grace period. In this case, as I understand it, neither the uncle nor the niece can rent or access housing assistance. Let us say that they can prove that they were negligently advised by lawyers that they did not need to apply for settlement because of a misunderstanding about nationality law—something I very much hope the Home Office would accept as a reasonable excuse for a late application. They make a late application, arguing that they have a reasonable excuse. Is it the case that while they wait for the application—even if it takes six week, eight weeks or two months—in the meantime neither of them would be able to rent and, similarly, they would not qualify for homelessness assistance?
Scenario three of four is the same as scenario two, but it is now July and one of the couple—the uncle and the niece—needs two small operations. They are not lifesaving, but they will fix some pretty serious pain. The first of the two operations happens just before they make the late application and it costs £10,000. The second happens after they make the application and it costs £15,000. Am I right in thinking that because of separate regulations made on 3 December—just last week—even the making of the late application means that the person continues to qualify for NHS treatment? Therefore, even while they could not rent or access homelessness assistance under the regulations that we are debating today, they could access the NHS.
If my understanding is right, why is there the inconsistency that while an application is outstanding, someone can get NHS treatment but not homelessness assistance? Is it not arguable that the regulations before us infringe the withdrawal agreement, particularly article 18(3), by not making a similar provision where a person has an outstanding late application? As I say, the Department of Health and Social Care published regulations last week that seemed to acknowledge that it has to give rights to those with outstanding applications, even if they are late; the Home Office does not appear to have recognised that.
Am I right in understanding that the £15,000 operation would not have to be paid for, because it happened while the application was outstanding? What about the £10,000 operation that happened just before the application went in? Even if the uncle and niece subsequently do get settled status, will they still be chased to pay the £10,000 for the operation that happened just before they submitted their application?
The fourth and final scenario again concerns a couple in a very similar position: they were badly advised and did not apply in time, so they have a reasonable excuse. Late next year, the Home Office charges them with illegal working. They apply in September for the settled status scheme and that is granted late. However, is it the case that the couple were, legally speaking—regardless of what practical answer the Home Office comes up with—guilty of a criminal offence from July, after the end of the grace period, until the application was decided? Because settled status is not retrospective, there would be a gap where they did not have status.
As I say, this is all very technical and I might have completely misunderstood some of the scenarios, but I have no doubt that we could go through every single one of the 60 or 70 regulations and conjure up scenarios that involve similar complications and technicalities. There are ways that the Home Office could make this easier. A declaratory scheme would be one, but putting that aside, there are things the Home Office should think about.
First, if a public body is approached by an EEA national without settled status and it appears that they could still apply for that settled status, perhaps we should put a duty on the public body to signpost them to the scheme. Rather than just saying, “You are not entitled to support,” there would be a duty on people to say, “Just now you are not entitled to support, but if you put in an application, you would be able to access it.” At the very least, I hope that is something the Home Office is encouraging of all people who are involved in checking immigration status, of whom there are many.
Secondly, if a person makes an application late—a situation I have alluded to—the Home Office should provide them with a certificate of application that makes it clear that they continue to be entitled to access support and all their rights while the application is outstanding. If there are clearly no reasonable grounds for the late application, the Home Office will be able to refuse immediately and no damage would be done. Otherwise, my view is that there is little to lose and much to gain from ensuring that they continue to be able to access all these rights while the application is outstanding. That seems to be the approach the Department of Health and Social Care has taken in the NHS regulations that were published last week, so I do not understand why that approach cannot be taken in the regulations before us today. It seems to me that that is arguably required by the withdrawal agreement.
Thirdly, if such a late application is successful, why do we not make settled status backdated so that there is not a break in the continuity of residence? When he was before the Home Affairs Committee, the Minister talked about how he was looking to ensure that that did not impact on nationality—for example, in the case of kids born during that period. I am aware that the Home Office is alive to this issue, but why not just make it retrospective in a blanket way, so that there is no gap in status?
I have one final request of the Minister. At the Home Affairs Committee, he was generous in agreeing to meet a couple of organisations. One to add to that list is the3million. It is a very sensible, pragmatic organisation. It accepts where we are at, and is just keen to work through all the scenarios and to work with the Government. If he is happy to meet it, that would be very helpful.
There are a million other issues I could raise today, such as access to national insurance numbers, which appears to be incredibly challenging for EU nationals.
I emphasise what the shadow Minister said about the complexity of the regulations. That is why we opposed the sweeping Henry VIII clauses when we debated the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. It is why my party proposed an equivalent to the Social Security Advisory Committee. This issue is so technical that we need experts on housing law, marriage law, family law, social security law—it covers such a huge range of subjects. The regulations are much more detailed and technical than the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, yet we have 90 minutes to consider them, with no witnesses and no access to experts, whereas the Bill essentially went through Parliament twice and we had lots of expert evidence to help us.
I have tried my best to scrutinise the regulations. Indeed, I think there might be a typo in regulation 12, if the Minister wants to note it down. The placing of the quotation marks and the stray “(3)” to my mind means that part of that regulation has no effect or has the opposite effect of what was intended. That is why this sort of regulation, which has important consequences, needs line-by-line scrutiny. I think that there is a mistake, but I do not know how we fix it, because we cannot amend the regulations, unlike the Bill.
My final question is: why rush this? Much as I hate it, free movement is coming to an end. Even if the regulations—or 90% of the regulations—were not passed until late next year, free movement would still end; it would simply mean that all these aspects of the hostile environment would not be applied to EEA nationals. There could be mistakes in here and we need to think about it much more carefully. Again, I echo what the shadow Minister says: let’s put this off and do it properly. As MPs, let us do our job of scrutinising the proposals properly by withdrawing the regulations and bringing them back as a Bill.
Kevin Foster
I thank members of the Committee for the debate we have had and for the observations they have made.
I will start with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire and then move on to the shadow Front Benchers. To be clear, we have said that we will publish a non-exhaustive list of examples. In each instance, a decision-maker should be able to use discretion if it is fair in the circumstances to do so. I have given examples, such as those who were under 18 on deadline day and their parent or local council, who had a duty to apply for them, did not. As I reassured my hon. Friend, when they hit the age of majority, which could be in 10, 13 or perhaps even 14 or 15 years’ time, and realise that there was no application, we would see it as reasonable for them to have assumed that their parent or guardian had done it.
Again, other circumstances include ill health or mental incapacity to make an application. I reassure Members that we will look at situations where someone has clearly received faulty or negligent legal advice in relation to their status. Generally, we will ensure that decision-makers are able to look at the circumstances and see whether there are reasonable grounds, rather than having a list and saying, “If you don’t meet that list, you can’t apply.”
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
If that extra discretion, and the complexity and anomalies that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax mentioned, were being added to a functioning, gold-plated, brilliant system, Members might be assured, but it is being added to a dysfunctional Home Office that is failing many of our constituents week in, week out through delays and erroneous decisions that leave people destitute.
Kevin Foster
I am sorry to hear that description of the EUSS that has already had 4.26 million applications. I give the hon. Gentleman a tip that it is about to hit another milestone in numbers of applications. We think that it is working fairly well. For most people, making an application is a 15-minute job at home, using a smartphone.
We want to take the lessons from how the EUSS has worked into the wider immigration system. Hon. Members may not have picked this up, but in the skilled worker route, an EEA national can use their smart phone from home to apply rather than making a trip to a visa application centre. Building on the experience of the EUSS, we have been able to provide secure identity checks from home. For obvious reasons, I will not go into all the details of what we do to verify identity, but this has been a real success and I am sorry to hear that description of it.
To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, we will have a range of circumstances listed along non-exhaustive lines. The longer the delay, the more there is a chance that someone knows that they do not have entitlement under the withdrawal agreement, but is claiming that they do. We want decision-makers to have flexibility and to treat this as faces, not cases. There will be a list, but it is not exhaustive.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East always makes well thought-through contributions, even though we have fundamental policy disagreements on this and a range of other issues. I will provide a detailed written response to him and the Committee, but I shall deal with a couple of points now. He mentioned two EEA nationals. Let us assume that they are in England, because as he will know the right to rent checks do not apply outside England. If they were renting before 30 June a landlord is perfectly entitled to accept an EEA passport or national identity card as proof that they meet the compliant environment checks. If anyone has concerns, they can regularise and make their application via the EUSS straight after. We will not be asking landlords to make retrospective checks if they have accepted an EEA passport or identity card, just as we would not expect employers on 1 July suddenly to check that every member of their staff has EUSS status. Up until that point, landlords and employers cannot insist on it, provided that someone has presented an appropriate document. They can, of course, use it and we are finding that it is very popular. Between April and June there were 400,000 checks under the new improved service, 100,000 of which were to look at EUSS status. Those who have it are already finding it a handy and convenient way of meeting the checks.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will set these things out in writing, and I get that the Home Office is not requiring landlords and employers to do those checks. I would like clarity on this: is the Home Office saying to landlords, “You do not need to do that check even though in the niece scenario she does not have the right to rent?” I am concerned that there is a danger in saying to landlords, “You don’t need to worry about the fact that you are renting to someone who does not have the right to rent.” Given everything that we know about how the right to rent operates, is that not just going to ramp up professional indemnity, so that landlords will take the safe course and not touch these people with a barge pole?
Kevin Foster
My next point relates to that example. He gave a clear example of a worker here in accordance with the EEA regulations on free movement. His second example was of someone who did not have retained rights because they were not here in strict accordance with those regulations. As he will know, the criteria for the EUSS is not strict compliance with EEA free movement regulations – it is residence in the United Kingdom. He would support the notion that it would produce some harsh outcomes if we based it purely on the free movement regulations. The situation that he has described would be that of the landlord in England who is renting today. He is talking today about someone who is not here strictly in accordance with the free movement regulations and who does not have free movement rights to be retained at 11 pm on 31 December – although I accept that someone could get a job and create new free movement rights before 31 December. It would be exactly the same legal position in January. No one has fewer rights or less ability in January than they have at 11 pm on 31 December. However, beyond the transition period new free movement rights cannot be created. That is the core difference.
Moving on to what would be a reasonable excuse for a late application, on some of the finer points – for example, someone being badly advised – it would probably be better for clarity to respond to those in writing.
I met representatives of We Belong last week. It was a productive conversation and we look forward to taking forward some changes. The3million group is on some of the Home Office’s advisory panels that are regularly engaged at official level. Once we have published the new guidance on the next milestones for the EUSS – the late grounds guidance – we will review ministerial engagement with the groups. I will be looking to meet the3million group at that stage – although by then we may have hit another milestone in millions of applications. We very much welcome all the applications coming in. We genuinely welcome all groups that promote the message that it is time to get in applications. If people have any concerns about their position in the United Kingdom beyond 1 July next year, now is the time to get in their application. Support is available on the phone, online and through our grant-funded organisations if people have any queries or concerns, or genuinely need assistance with the application.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said that it would be no surprise that, as a member of the Scottish National party, he will opposing the legislation. No, it is not. I recognise that the SNP has a long and fairly solid policy on free movement. I was slightly more surprised at the position being adopted by the Labour party, given that we are only a few days away from the anniversary of the general election, in which an inability to respect the referendum result became a decisive moment for many former Labour Members of Parliament. This SI is about ending the references to free movement in UK law. Free movement is ending. There will not be a reciprocal arrangement on the continent of Europe beyond the end of the transition period. We published a draft of this regulation while the Bill was being debated in the House in order to allow more time for scrutiny. We accepted that just publishing it under the usual SI rules would not be the best way of ensuring good scrutiny and debate. We do not imagine that some of the changes – for example, designating every registry office as a designated place – will be particularly controversial, given that it will make life easier for many non-EEA citizens to get married in the UK. It is a surprise to see the resistance to ending free movement, and to having a single immigration system that judges people by what they have to offer to the UK and their talents, not by where their passports were issued, continuing a year after the general election, but I am sure that it will be noted with interest across the now blue wall.
There are many areas of law to be changed. We joined the European Union – or the EEC as it was called then – in 1973. That means that, unsurprisingly, there is a large number of references across legislation to free movement. Any immigration law that has been passed since then by Governments of both colours will inevitably have referred to the fact that EU citizens had free movement rights. That free movement is coming to an end. That policy has been supported and it was clearly part of our manifesto commitment. In terms of the civil service rules, it is right that someone who works in the civil service has the appropriate immigration permission for the UK, as was of course covered by the withdrawal agreement. I want to reassure anyone who is working in the public service, who is an EEA national and who will inherently have free movement because they are working here, that the EUSS is there for them and we very much look forward to them making an application.
It is a surprise that, a year later, we are still hearing reasons from the Labour party why they do not support this core part of implementing the referendum result. I accept that other parties have a clear view on continuing freedom of movement, but I was not aware that the Labour party did: one day it argues that it does, and other days it argues that it does not. For this Government, the focus is on ensuring a functioning statute book, that we have an EUSS that is effective in protecting the rights of our friends and neighbours who have come to this country and who make a huge difference to it, and that we move forward and deliver our promises. Therefore, I ask the Committee to support the regulation.
Question put,