Migration and Scotland

Debate between Kevin Foster and Philippa Whitford

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate, and I would like to thank the SNP for this opportunity to highlight the needs and challenges faced not only by Scotland but across our United Kingdom. In starting, it is right for me to reflect on the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), and to congratulate her on her passionate explanation of what drove her into politics. I know that she will be a strong representative of her community.

As Members on the Scottish National party Benches will know, I am always keen to discuss a range of issues with all 59 of Scotland’s Members of Parliament here in this Chamber. I understand that remote areas and island communities face demographic pressures that have eroded the local workforce, leaving opportunities unfilled and threatening the stability of the rural economy. However, it has to be said that that has happened with freedom of movement in place. We need these issues to be addressed across our Union, not just by individual parts of our Union, yet the Scottish Government’s policy paper proposes measures that go against the recommendations of the independent and impartial Migration Advisory Committee. The MAC has consistently advised against applying different immigration arrangements to different areas of the UK. That cannot be stressed enough. As such, we have no plans to devolve immigration and create invisible borders within our United Kingdom—in effect, creating an economic version of Hadrian’s Wall or Offa’s Dyke. This Government are clear that our points-based immigration system will serve the needs of the whole United Kingdom, including Scotland. It goes without saying that any national differences in the rules or visa offers around the UK would result in an overly complex system at a time when we are trying to streamline and simplify the process, and would create additional burdens for businesses, employers and migrants.

I appreciate the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and of the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). We might disagree on aspects of migration policy, including where we would draw the line, but I think we can agree that implementing a system based on whether someone’s job was in Gretna or Gateshead would present challenges—[Interruption.] I hear chuckling from the Benches opposite, but there are many workers whose jobs are necessarily based across our United Kingdom. Members of Parliament are a good example. I am in Whitehall and the Palace of Westminster during the week, but Torbay is also my main place of work. I know that many Opposition Members are in a similar position. My point is that there are millions of workers whose work regularly requires them to move between locations, and we do not wish to create a border for them within our United Kingdom.

It is unrealistic and undesirable to create a visa that binds a person to one part of the United Kingdom, opening the door to uncertain enforcement and complex bureaucracy, and creating routes to avoid and abuse the provisions by those seeking to undermine other areas of immigration policy. That is why we do not believe that this is the appropriate process to adopt. However, that does not mean that we do not want to hear what people have to say about our policies. One of the first suggestions from the Scottish National party in this debate was a graduate route for those who have been here on a tier 4 visa studying a course. Members may be interested to note that university-sponsored applications have increased by 14% over the last year to over 220,000, which is the highest ever level.

[Dr Whitford]

rose—

[Neil Gray]

rose—

Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill (Changed to Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill)

Debate between Kevin Foster and Philippa Whitford

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

As always, I thank my right hon. Friend for his incisive intervention. The Channel Islands might use our currency and, in many ways, fly our flag, but people forget they have a very different constitutional status and are not part of the European Union. For some visitors, it can be a surprise that there is not a reciprocal agreement. There is a reciprocal arrangement with Gibraltar, for example, and it makes eminent sense to try to have such an arrangement between the UK and the Channel Islands, not least given the strong cultural links and the fact that many families split their time between the mainland and the islands.

Looking across the Commonwealth more widely, it might make sense to have arrangements with countries such as Canada and Jamaica in the long run, based on the fact that they have comparable systems of healthcare provision. That is perhaps where the oft-cited example of the United States starts to fall apart, because it is one of the handful of modern, developed countries that do not have a guaranteed system of universal healthcare free at the point of need rather than a system based on insurance schemes for which people may pay.

It is welcome to have ambition, and the Bill is clear about where we are going. I have no problems with the Lords amendments, which are welcome, and I am happy to support them. I am conscious that we are looking to move the debate forward, but I wanted to get those thoughts on the record.

[Dr Whitford]

Obviously, the Bill itself is quite small. It does not extend or protect continuing reciprocal healthcare rights; it is simply an enabling Bill that gives the Secretary of State powers to try to do that. It enables him to pay for overseas treatment in the EEA and Switzerland. We have heard how the Lords removed the powers to extend that worldwide and increase the scope, as well as limiting some of the Henry VIII powers.

The Bill will allow the Secretary of State and his team to negotiate healthcare agreements with the EEA and Switzerland as a group through the EU system or, failing that, to make bilateral agreements. Unfortunately, that would mean having bilateral agreements with 31 countries, which would inevitably be more complex, more bureaucratic and more expensive.

Clause 4 allows data exchange, which most Members would recognise is absolutely critical not just for collecting payments or swapping money, but for accessing medical health records if someone goes for treatment in another country. It is important that that will be handled only by an authorised person who is part of a statutory body—a public body.

I welcome the new clause in Lords amendment 11, which says that the devolved Governments must be consulted, because it is the three devolved Governments who deliver healthcare in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. It is critical that they are involved in any agreements.

This legislation is needed whether there is a deal or no deal. As came out of the points of order exchange earlier, the withdrawal agreement would extend through the transition period, but we have all seen how the last three years have melted away like snow off a dyke. The next 20 months will also disappear, so legislation is required for the long-term protection of those who already live in Europe and want to stay there, particularly those who have been there only a few years and do not have five years-worth of residency rights in the country they have chosen to settle in. After the Bill is passed, it is therefore important that the Government hope to negotiate the continuation of reciprocal healthcare.

The problem is that reciprocal healthcare is not a free-standing thing on its own; it is there simply to enable freedom of movement. People cannot exercise their freedom of movement rights if they simply cannot afford healthcare where they choose to live, work, love, settle or retire. We have had the right over the past few decades to retire and settle anywhere. People are well aware of my husband’s situation as a German citizen who lives here and has spent virtually all his adult life working in our health system. That was certainly his first concern after the Brexit vote, and I am sure it is a concern for all 5 million people who have either settled here from Europe or settled in Europe from the UK.

The problem is that, as the Government reject freedom of movement and talk merely about a mobility framework, any reciprocal arrangement is likely to be proportional to that mobility framework, as is described in the impact assessment. The Government are not offering visas of over a year for unskilled workers. They are demanding that people be high skilled, possibly that they earn more than £30,000 a year and that they are economically active and are contributors. Will pensioners still be able to retire elsewhere, since they are not necessarily contributors in a major sense and are certainly not necessarily economically active?

People highlight the difference between what the UK has to pay into the European system and what we get back from Europe. A lot of that difference is quite simply because of the number of UK pensioners who choose to retire to sunnier climes—who can blame them?—and the general lack of obsession with retiring to the drizzle and moving in the other direction. Living in Scotland, I can vouch for that. Who would choose to leave the south of France and come to live in the mist, fog and drizzle? That is why the number of European pensioners retiring to the UK is considerably smaller than the number of UK pensioners who retire to the south of Spain and the south of France. That is simple logic.

Concentrix

Debate between Kevin Foster and Philippa Whitford

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read the HMRC report being discussed this afternoon by the PAC; it might be worth his attending the session if he gets the chance. It is worth noting that with new leadership, which has been needed for some time, HMRC is starting to turn around its customer service, by moving more staff into dealing with post, for example. There is some evidence that the customer service is improving, therefore, which is welcome, although I know that some of these assertions will be robustly tested by a number of Members, including the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague and PAC member the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell).

It is vital that the investigation is full and that we look at what comes out of it. I welcome the Minister’s saying that there is an ongoing negotiation about concluding the contract early. We cannot go into the details of that today for obvious reasons, but I hope the work being done to bring this whole sorry tale to an end will be shared with the NAO as part of its inquiry.

One of the conclusions to be drawn is that it is clear that people have been caused pain and suffering that they should not have been caused. People have been subjected to allegations that were flagrantly untrue: the “philandering shop”; the person living down the road; someone who has been dead for some years. We should think about the way the contractor went about things—sending letters with the contractor’s logo that looked very similar to official Government or HMRC letters. We might have debates about whether in future the symbol of the Crown and HMRC should be used on a letter sent by a contractor.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Many of the constituents who came to me did not appear to have received a letter at all. A letter with some strange logo on it might not register as being what it is about and therefore might get overlooked.

[Kevin Foster]

I understand that point, but the evidence from my constituency case load is that it cut both ways. Some people saw a logo that looked like it was from HMRC and wondered what the letter was about. This matter might require further inquiry, and we should consider the information that the NAO will bring forward. The NAO does not just look at the sums. It is not just going to work out how many people got paid for what. It will also go into the detail around the customer service, and certainly in previous reports it has been extremely thorough when doing so.

I welcome the overall tone of the Minister’s response to this motion, and I welcome the fact that the Government took clear and decisive action to bring this contract to an end and are continuing to do that and to prevent more people from having to experience the issues many Members have highlighted today. I hope the monitoring will go on because, as we have seen with past issues to do with HMRC, an in-house solution is not necessarily a magic bullet to achieving amazing customer service. We have only to look at past debates on HMRC’s performance to see that. I welcome some of the tone of today’s debate, but it is now absolutely clear that we need to resolve the outstanding cases, let the NAO do its work and then form our conclusions based on the evidence it brings to us.