Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dame Siobhain, and to contribute to Bill Committee proceedings on this important piece of legislation.

I will briefly state the purpose and effect of the clause before I make some more detailed remarks. The purpose of the clause is to ensure retrospective power for the charging of fees currently provided on behalf of the Home Office and the Department for Education in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK from any time to the point at which the Bill comes into force. The effect of the clause is that fees charged by, or under, arrangements with the Secretary of State in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK will have been charged lawfully.

I will now lay out how this situation came about. In spring 2024, under the previous Administration, an issue was identified with the legal arrangements to charge fees for three services provided by a third-party supplier on behalf of the Home Office and the DFE. Those are the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, the Department for Education’s UK European network of information centres services, and the Department for Education’s non-UK early years qualifications recognition service. A statutory basis for those fees has not been in place for a part, or the whole, of the period of their being charged. Although we do not have an exact date from which that may have run, the estimate is from around 2008 to the present day.

Regulations have been made for the charging of services recently for the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, and are being made for the Department for Education’s UK ENIC services. The fee for the non-UK early years qualifications recognition service was removed. We are bringing forward the clause to ensure that fees charged before the Bill comes into force are lawful.

We recognise that retrospective legislation should be used with caution, however, we consider that there are important reasons for it in this case, and indeed, that it was assumed that there was a legal basis for those fees in the past. In considering whether retrospective legislation is the right approach, it is important to be clear that customers who paid a fee received a service that they were able to use as part of, for example, a visa or nationality application, or to understand the comparability of qualifications to support access to education or work.

Other options, such as repaying fees, would require placing a considerable and unfair financial burden on UK taxpayers, who have not, on the whole, directly benefited financially from income generated by these services. That is why we believe that this measure is the right course of action to ensure that there is no doubt about the charges being lawful while protecting taxpayer money and Government resource. I repeat the fundamental point that a service was received for the fee that was paid.

It is important to make sure that we learn lessons and ensure that that situation does not happen again. Both Departments now have robust guidance and processes in place to support policy leads where legislative powers are needed to support the charging of fees in relation to the provision of public services.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Clause 51 details the validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications. We support this measure.

[The Chair]

Great—we are off to a flying start.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Financial provisions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will not push the amendment to a vote.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 52 details the financial provisions. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the regulations. Clause 55 extends the Act to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 56 details when the sections of the Act come into force. We welcome the clarity provided by the Minister on collaboration. We will not oppose these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 53 and 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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

The new clause encompasses the conditions that can be attached to permission to enter or stay and immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained, for example because they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings, they may be placed on immigration bail. Where appropriate and in accordance with our European convention on human rights obligations, those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews.

Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, they are granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subjected to while on immigration bail.

The new clause will end that disparity in the powers available to protect the public from the particular migrant who poses a threat. It also makes crystal clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail.

[Matt Vickers]

The new clause makes provision about the conditions that can be imposed on a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or a grant of immigration bail. The new conditions focus primarily on electronic monitoring, and we are supportive of those. However, given that the Government are repealing the provision passed by the last Conservative Government to mandate scientific age assessment, I am interested to know how they intend to ensure that the requirement that an electronic monitoring condition

“may not be imposed on a person unless the person is at least 18 years old”

can be delivered. As the Minister may have noticed, I am deeply concerned about the repealing of mandatory scientific age assessment provisions, and this is another reason why. Can she give us any timetable for when the Government might return to the issue?

[Pete Wishart]

I am a little disconcerted by this new clause. It is disappointing that it was introduced so late in proceedings; it should have been included in the Bill as presented on First Reading. Regardless of that, the new clause seems to fit a trend that I have detected with this Bill: there seems to be a cavalier attitude, approach and relationship with international obligations and some of our human rights commitments. Whereas I think everybody would accept that we want to target high-risk criminals and offenders, and the Government require the necessary powers to do that, they do admit that there are issues to do with the ECHR. I want to hear the Minister explain clearly what she means by high harm and risk. I think she has to give the Committee examples of the type of person who would fall foul of the new clause.

Human rights protections are in place for really good reasons. They have been designed and concocted to ensure that people get the protections regardless of what they may have committed in the past. We muck about with them at our peril. All that this cavalier approach to human rights will do is encourage those who want to get rid of our international obligations and our human rights entirely. I am looking at my Conservative friends; this does nothing other than encourage them and push this Government to go further.

We need to hear from the Government what they actually mean by the new clause. Given this watering-down of our commitments, we need to hear a real commitment from the Government that they stand by our international obligations and everything that is included in human rights for everybody we have a responsibility and obligation for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I want to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I understand the importance of being sensitive to possible infringements and abuses of international law; indeed, in recent years, we have seen states around the world traducing it. However, I gently say to him—I hope it has not missed his attention—that the Prime Minister is a lawyer and, as a consequence of that background, he is deeply wedded to the law. In most of his speeches and statements, he refers consistently to the importance of the UK being a leader on the world stage by respecting international law.

I say that because the Committee has just repealed the Safety of Rwanda Act, which was deemed unlawful by the courts. We have a Prime Minister who deeply respects international law; around the world, we have states and actors who traduce it. Having a Prime Minister and a country that are so committed to it at this point in history is really important. I gently say to the hon. Member that it is important that we are sensitive to possible infringements of international law, but we ought not to overplay the possibility of it happening here in our country, when all the evidence from the last eight months should give us confidence and hope.

[Matt Vickers]

I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of the operational utility of the new clause. What impact do the Government expect it to have on lowering the rate of abscondence from immigration bail?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have had a small but perfectly formed debate on the new clause. I seek to reassure the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and explain to those who have made contributions the effect of the provisions.

I say gently to the hon. Member that the Bill is in compliance with international human rights laws. The powers in the new clause are necessary to protect the public from a very small cohort of migrants who pose a threat to them, but who cannot be removed because of our obligations under domestic and international law. In other words, they exist only because we are observing our obligations under international law. If we were simply to ignore international law and seek to deport people against the standards of international law to which we have signed up, we would not need to have these extra powers. We are debating new clause 30 only because we are adhering to international law. The hon. Member says that we are being cavalier about our commitment to adhering to international law. I gently say that he has got it pretty wrong.

In these cases, we will continue to frequently assess each person’s circumstances to ensure that they are removed at the earliest opportunity from measures such as a requirement to report, a curfew or electronic tagging, if it is safe to do so from the point of view of protecting the public. The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. That is a pretty high bar.

The idea is that if somebody is on immigration bail and we are trying to detain them to deport them, but it transpires that we cannot deport them because of the threat to their safety and they have to be looked after here, it is wholly proportionate, if they present a real threat to the public, that the powers to electronically tag them or subject them to exclusion or inclusion zones can be attached to them. We are talking about people who come off immigration bail because we cannot deport them and, without the new clause, would suddenly find themselves much freer to cause the damage that we fear they may cause if they are left unwatched. That is the very narrow purpose of the new clause in the circumstances that I have talked about. To impose these tough restrictions there has to be a proportionality test, and of course all that is testable in law.

We are seeking to make certain that we can satisfy ourselves, more than we can at present, that that small category of people who, on a case-by-case basis, will be assessed to present this kind of risk can be properly managed and watched. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree to add the new clause to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 30 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc

“(1) For the purposes of this section ‘relevant citizens’ rights’ means the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which—

(a) are recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of

section 7A or 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and

(b) are derived from—

(i) Title 2 of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement or Title 1 or 4 of Part 2 of that agreement so far as relating to Title 2 of that Part,

(ii) Title 2 of Part 2 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement or Title 1 or 4 of Part 2 of that agreement so far as relating to Title 2 of that Part, or

(iii) Article 4(2), 7 or 8 or Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 2 of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement or Title 1 of Part 2 of that agreement so far as relating to Chapter 1 of Title 2 of that Part.

(2) Subsection (5) applies to a person (‘P’) where—

(a) P has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules,

(b) the leave was granted to P on the basis of requirements which included that P is a relevant national or is (or was) a family member of a person who is (or was) a relevant national,

(c) each of the requirements on the basis of which P’s leave was granted was in fact met,

(d) either—

(i) in a case where P’s leave was not granted on the basis that P is (or was) a joining family member of a relevant sponsor, P was resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands immediately before the end of the implementation period, or

(ii) in a case where P’s leave was granted on the basis that P is (or was) a joining family member of a relevant sponsor, the relevant sponsor was resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands immediately before the end of the implementation period, and

(e) the residency mentioned in paragraph (d) was not relevant residency.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) a person is to be treated as a family member of another person if they are treated as the family member of that person by residence scheme immigration rules;

(b) ‘joining family member’ and ‘relevant sponsor’ have the same meaning as in residence scheme immigration rules;

(c) a person is to be treated as resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands immediately before the end of the implementation period even if they were temporarily absent from the United Kingdom or the Islands at that time if their absence was permitted for the purposes of establishing or maintaining eligibility for leave under residence scheme immigration rules;

(d) ‘relevant national’ means a national of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden or Switzerland.

(4) In this section ‘relevant residency’ means—

(a) residency in accordance with Union law (within the meaning of the withdrawal agreement),

(b) residency in accordance with the EEA Agreement (within the meaning of the EEA EFTA separation agreement), or

(c) residency in accordance with the FMOPA (within the meaning of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement).

(5) Relevant citizens’ rights—

(a) are capable of accruing and applying to a person to whom this subsection applies notwithstanding that the residency mentioned in subsection (2)(d) was not relevant residency, and

(b) are to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.

(6) Every enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act) is to be read and has effect subject to subsection (5).

(7) In this section—

‘EEA EFTA separation agreement’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) of that Act);

‘enactment’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (see section 20(1) of that Act);

‘the implementation period’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (see section 1A(6) of that Act);

‘the Islands’ means the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man;

‘residence scheme immigration rules’ has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 17 of that Act);

‘Swiss citizens’ rights agreement’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) of that Act);

‘withdrawal agreement’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) and (6) of that Act).”—(Seema Malhotra.)

This new clause ensures that an EEA or Swiss national or their family member who has immigration leave granted under the EU Settlement Scheme can enforce residency and other rights directly under the withdrawal (or other separation) agreement even if the person, or their family member, was not resident in the UK or the Islands in accordance with Union (or other equivalent) law at the end of the implementation period.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

Duty to publish a strategy on safe and managed routes

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy on the Government’s efforts to establish additional safe and legal routes for persons to seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.”—(Pete Wishart.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a strategy on the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for making a compelling argument around the balance between our decency and humanity and not creating a pull factor that will cause more risk. I draw the Committee’s attention to our work as a Government with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has resettled individuals from Ethiopia, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Combined with the other resettlement routes that we have in place, such as family reunion, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes, we have resettled over half a million individuals since 2015—I do not know the exact stats. There are ways to come here safely for people who need it.

When it comes to illegal migration, it is important that we take out the smuggling gangs. The Bill will help us do that with disruptive measures so we can get there first. This counter-terror approach is the right way.

[Matt Vickers]

SNP new clause 1 and Liberal Democrat new clause 6 seek to establish, within six months of the passage of this legislation, safe and legal routes through which refugees and other individuals can enter the UK. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said, it was very good that the previous Conservative Government set up the Afghan resettlement programme, which was a route that Afghans could use to come to the UK. However, in that same year, 2022, over 8,000 Afghans arrived on small boats—the second-highest number of people by nationality. The trend has continued, as Afghans were the top nationality arriving by small boats in 2023 and 2024. This shows that safe and legal routes do not necessarily lead to an end to crossings in small boats. The point is especially important now, as the EU has begun to take action to tackle illegal migration, such as looking again at the 1951 refugee convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have been impressed by his contributions thus far in public, but it is utterly absurd and ridiculous to suggest that offering safe routes is somehow on a par with the Rwanda scheme. It disrespects the hon. Gentleman’s case to suggest there is any similarity about this. We are trying to ensure that the business model of the gangs will be smashed and tackled.

[Matt Vickers]

Who and where does the hon. Gentleman see the scheme applying to? It is very easy to go along with the case for compassion, but who and where? The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot give an indication of numbers or costs, but who are the priorities, and who exactly will benefit from such a scheme?

[Pete Wishart]

If we look at the international situation, we know the hotspots and the areas and issues that have difficulty, because there are people queuing up in France to come to the United Kingdom. Safe routes should not be the only solution; they are part of a solution. We also have to look at what we are doing on the ground in these countries about particular difficulties and issues. We seem to be making the situation 10 times worse by withdrawing international aid from a number of these countries, which will only put more pressure on these areas. The scheme is part of a package. It looks at the criminalisation clauses and uses safe routes as a means to assist that process, getting involved in countries where there are difficulties and issues and trying to help resolve the tensions and difficulties there. For every single organisation that works with refugees and asylum seekers and is concerned about their care, this is their main ask. We should listen to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Murray]

I do not think it is the state of the Scottish health service that is attracting people to Scotland. Other Members are seeing what it is like dealing with the Scottish nationalist party. To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. To the SNP, the solution to every question is Scottish independence, or some specific Scottish legislation. Where there are specificities in Scotland, such as our health service and some of our labour market, there absolutely should be action from the Scottish Government to deal with it. However, this problem is not that. The issue is not that Scotland needs to become independent to attract people. We need to reform our labour market so that we can deal with the demographic issues.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire makes the point that people are coming to Scotland now, but once again the SNP is making the mistake of seeing all of Scotland as some monolithic whole, rather than trying to think about what is happening in Scotland. My constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is seeing record population growth, at 15%, and it is 20% in the East Lothian part of the constituency. We are struggling to put in houses because we are so attractive and wonderful.

But other parts of Scotland are not finding that. The hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West is present, and there are serious challenges in Inverclyde as population is declining. We are seeing a move in Scotland from the west coast to the east coast, as Scottish people move about, and we are also seeing international migrants focusing on certain parts. Some areas have vacancies, especially the highlands and the north of Scotland, because moving there is not attractive to people within Scotland. A Scottish visa could end up with everyone moving to Edinburgh, which would not at all solve the problems that other Members in the room face.

I made the point at the beginning that if we want to use migration to solve our demographic challenges, we are falling into the same mistake as the far right: we are forgetting that migrants are people. They are not just cogs that we put in a machine to be placed in and taken out at will. They are people who grow old, get sick, fall in love, move around and do stuff. We do not suddenly put people in and find that we have solved our demographic challenge. There are whole sets of things that we have to do. Most of all, the main point is that this is a debate that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and I need to have at length over the course of this Parliament, not as part of the Bill.

[Matt Vickers]

SNP new clauses 3 and 4 seek to set up a separate visa scheme and immigration rules for Scotland. Can the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire explain a little more about how this would work in practice? Who does he expect or anticipate those “certain workers” to be? How does he expect that to work in isolation from the wider UK economy? What would prevent someone from applying for a visa to Scotland and moving to other parts of the UK? Is the SNP advocating that there should be checks on people moving between Scotland and the rest of the UK? Why is the SNP not spending more time getting those who are economically inactive into work, rather than reaching for the immigration lever?

[Sarah Bool]

I think that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire implied Professor David Coleman was talking about eugenics in the session. I want to put on record that he was not talking about eugenics and that he is an emeritus professor of demography; I know that was a line of questioning raised by the Minister. I want to put on record that that was not what he was there for. He was there to talk about his work with Migration Watch.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Pete Wishart]

I trust everybody enjoyed the five-course banquet we had in the 20 minutes available to us. I apologise if I seemed to be unnecessarily detaining the Committee and depriving them of a good and solid lunch; we will make sure that that does not happen again, Dame Siobhain.

It was with a gasp of astonishment that we learned of this Government’s intention to change the nationality good character requirement guidance—it came totally out of the blue. I think we are all still reeling a little bit, thinking about what this involves and what is at stake. It establishes a new standard that individuals who previously entered the UK illegally or without valid entry clearance, particularly in what is described as a “dangerous journey”, will now be refused citizenship. That is a huge departure from previous practice, where illegal entry was typically considered a barrier to citizenship only if it had occurred in the past 10 years. Regardless of how long a person has lived in the UK, their mode of entry could now be used to deny them the right to naturalise.

This policy has been implemented without prior consultation or parliamentary scrutiny—it is going to get a little bit this afternoon, but that is only because we have brought the issue to this Committee—and that raises serious concerns about its fairness and legality. The majority of refugees arrive in the UK through irregular routes; safe and legal pathways remain extremely limited, as we learned in the previous debate. By effectively banning these individuals from citizenship, this policy risks permanently disenfranchising those who have sought protection in the UK and who have built their lives here.

We already heard from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which wrote to the Committee to say that the decision to deny citizenship based on mode of entry contradicts the UK’s commitment under international law, particularly article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention. This article’s non-penalisation clause states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

The denial of citizenship based on how someone arrived in the UK is a clear penalty, which goes contrary to the convention. The UNHCR notes that it previously highlighted in its legal observation on the Illegal Migration Bill 2023 that restricting access to citizenship under section 31 to 35 of that Act would constitute a

“penalty under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and be in breach of that provision. It further stated that the provisions ran counter to Article 34 of the Refugee Convention and Article 32 of the 1954 Convention on Statelessness which requires States to ‘as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of’ refugees and stateless people”.

Despite the proposed repeal of these provisions, updates to the nationality good character requirement guidance issued in February 2025 appear to reintroduce similar barriers, further restricting pathways to citizenship for those affected. In addition, the policy change is likely to deter many from applying for citizenship altogether, given the high costs involved and the lack of an appeal process in case of refusal. Even if the guidance states that an exception may be made, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will tell me, those who would be likely to obtain citizenship due to their personal circumstances will be deterred from applying.

Currently, a naturalisation application costs £1,605, with an expected increase of £1,685. That financial burden, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the application process, creates significant barriers for refugees and stateless persons who would otherwise seek to integrate fully into British society.

The application of the policy will go beyond individual applicants. Citizenship is a key factor in social integration, providing security, stability and full participation in civic life, including the right to vote in general elections. Without access to naturalisation, many individuals who have lived and worked in, and contributed to, the UK for years—if not decades—will remain in a precarious status. Although the Home Office guidance allows for some discretion in decision making, it provides no real criteria on how that discretion will be applied. The lack of transparency makes the process unpredictable and risks creating a system where citizenship decisions are inconsistent or arbitrary.

The changes also highlight the broader issue of immigration law being shaped through administrative guidance rather than through democratic scrutiny, which is our role as parliamentarians in this House. By changing the interpretation of the statutory good character requirement without parliamentary oversight, the Home Office has effectively reinstated elements of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that were meant to be scrapped through this Bill. The lack of accountability is deeply concerning.

Granting citizenship is a key step in ending an individual’s status as a refugee or stateless person. It also benefits the host country by fostering economic, social and cultural integration while promoting social cohesion. Restricting access to citizenship undermines those objectives, and that is why I tabled this new clause.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to change current Home Office guidance stating that people who entered the UK illegally, regardless of how long ago, will normally be refused citizenship. The new clause states that illegal entry—in other words, breaking into this country—should be disregarded as a factor for the purposes of assessing whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the good character requirement. Effectively, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to ensure that entering this country illegally is not a bar to gaining citizenship.

British citizenship is a huge honour and privilege, and the benefits that come with it have attached costs. Can hon. Members see what a pull factor this measure would create for making dangerous channel crossings in small boats? There is nothing compassionate about allowing small boat crossings to continue, and this new clause would do nothing but encourage more. The Labour Government are already repealing provisions in our Illegal Migration Act that prevented illegal migrants from getting citizenship. It seems that the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government are all in agreement that illegal migrants should get British citizenship. Do the SNP and the Liberal Democrats agree with the Prime Minister that British citizenship is not a pull factor for illegal immigrants?

If people believe that crossing in a small boat will ensure that they can not only stay, but stay for evermore with all the attached benefits of British citizenship, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. Even the Government’s own Border Security Commander has said that we cannot smash the gangs without a deterrent. British citizenship and all its associated benefits would provide an incentive for making that small boat crossing, inducing people to feed the model of the evil people-smuggling gangs. The Conservative party believes that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a reward for illegally crossing the channel. We do not support the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

I will be relatively brief. The three new clauses concern Europol, and the Liberal Democrats and I think that they are vital to ensuring that the Bill goes further and is more effective. Cross-border co-operation is key to reducing small boat crossings—something that the former Government made it harder for our country to do. However, the Bill misses the opportunity to better tackle them. We believe that this Government should strive for greater cross-border co-operation, including by working with Europol. Including that as part of the Bill seems a sensible step.

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Katie Lam]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

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

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

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

[Katie Lam]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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

This is a minor new clause that would require the publication of a report on the impact of implementing the carers minimum wage on the level of net migration. As MPs, we want to understand the data and facts to enable us to scrutinise the Government. Without the data, we cannot do our job properly—it is as simple as that.

[Matt Vickers]

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 14 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers minimum wage on levels of net migration. It requires such publication within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

What outcome are hon. Members seeking to achieve with the new clause? What is the proposed minimum wage for carers that the Liberal Democrats would impose? Our care workers deserve fair pay. We are seeing the impact of the national insurance rise on the care sector and the organisations operating therein, who are now struggling to sustain themselves and deliver good jobs and good pay to the care workers they employ. What assessment has been done of the costs of such a minimum wage and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that this was fully funded?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am pleased to speak on new clause 14. It is unclear whether its intention is to commission a review of the impact of setting a minimum wage for new entrants or for settled workers in the care sector. I interpreted that its effect would be the Government commissioning a review into implementing a national minimum wage for workers in the social care sector. It is unclear whether it would apply to international workers or the whole labour market.

It is also unclear—I think this was the shadow Minister’s point—what the minimum wage for carers being referred to is; there are no sector-based minimum wage standards. The national living wage is currently £11.44 for people aged 21 or over. It is rising to £12.21 in April. International workers on a health and care visa are currently required to be paid £11.90.

I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report before Parliament given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis, which will show the impact of changes in inwards migration. It will not be possible for that data to show the effect of this issue on net migration, as the figures will depend on other factors such as the number of people who choose to leave the UK, which might not be a result of care worker minimum wage requirements.  It is also not clear whether the report would have to look at settled workers and other workers in the labour market as well as those who are on health and care visas.

We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of international care workers recruited for just over a year, and that is because employers have been unable to demonstrate that they have genuine vacancies that would guarantee sufficient hours to meet salary requirements. The most recently published data and statistics show that in the year ending December 2024, the number of international care workers reduced by 91%. The work that the Home Office is doing with the Department of Health and Social Care is increasing the role of regional hubs, with £16 million going into them. Regional hubs play an important role in supporting workers who may have left an employer or lost a licence to find other employment. That reduces the dependency on recruiting from abroad because we are already using those who are here on those visas and wish to work, alongside continuing to recruit home-grown talent.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not fully aware that we are introducing the first fair pay agreement to the adult social care sector, so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. The Government will engage all those who draw upon care, as well as those who provide care. We will also consult local authorities, unions and others from across the sector. Fair pay agreements will empower worker representatives, employers and others to negotiate pay, and terms and conditions, in a responsible manner. Crucially, they will help to address the long-standing issues with sustainability of resource, recruitment and retention that we all know exist in the care sector. That will address the workforce crisis in that extremely important sector and so support the delivery of high-quality care. Fair pay agreements are an important first step towards a national care service.

I hope that clarifies the Government’s position and why it will not be necessary to lay a report before Parliament—and that certainly should not be required under this legislation, which is about stopping criminal gangs in their awful trade. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause and engage in this debate in other ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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

I highlighted this proposed new clause in a previous speech. The clause would ensure a three-month service standard for asylum casework, so that the Government can tackle the backlogs that they inherited. It would require UK Visas and Immigration to introduce that three-month service standard for decisions on asylum claims, to benefit both asylum seekers and the British taxpayer. The service standard

“must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”

That would help the Government as they rectify the mess they inherited. If the Government suggest that the period I have chosen—three months—should be six months, I am happy to talk about that. I think that setting a stretch target—the Government are setting several, such as the 1.5 million homes target—is appropriate.

[Matt Vickers]

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 15 would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases, meaning that

“98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”

We agree with the principle that asylum applications should be determined as swiftly as possible, but the raft of new clauses proposed by the Liberal Democrats, including the unfunded proposals to create additional “safe and legal routes”, would surely only increase the queue, and the time required to make initial decisions on claims. The Liberal Democrats do not appear to have any desire to remove those who have entered this country illegally. We can reduce decision times by deterring people, rather than inducing them to enter the country illegally. Is the proposed new clause an attempt to speed up the granting of citizenship, as per Liberal Democrat proposed new clause 13, rather than speeding up decisions so that we can deport those who have entered this country illegally?

[Mike Tapp]

It is worth noting that, prior to February 2019, there was a six-month standard time. That was abandoned by the previous Government around the same time that they decided to open the borders. Home Office Ministers have been looking to speed up processing as much as possible. The new clause would be unhelpful because the Home Office is often waiting on outside checks to be completed. The Home Office is, of course, seeking to speed up decisions, but its control is limited because it is trying to get through such huge backlogs. The second important point is that, if we legislate for this and an international event like the Ukraine situation occurs, we would not be able to speed up processing by putting some of the people already being processed to the back of the queue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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

I am happy to introduce new clause 16, which involves an exemption for NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exempt the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees.

[Matt Vickers]

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

[Katie Lam]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

We need to understand the impact of our immigration laws on victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates into UK law the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and to report compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, in determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities or other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

I hope that the new clauses are taken in the spirit they are intended. If they fail—based on my experience in the last hour, I think they might—I hope that Ministers and their officials will work with their teams on our immigration laws to make sure that no vulnerable person who has been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery falls through the cracks.

[Matt Vickers]

Liberal Democrat new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings into UK law, and to report on compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

We have seen the abuse of human rights legislation by criminals who want to remain in the UK, such as an Albanian criminal who was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The judge in the case allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights. Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often that is frustrated by spurious legal claims. The human right of our own citizens to be protected from the criminals is routinely ignored. How do the Liberal Democrats plan to stop the abuse of the clauses by people who know that their asylum claim is likely to be rejected, for example?

[Pete Wishart]

I rise in support of the new clauses, particularly new clause 18. There have been a number of references to ECAT throughout our proceedings. New clause 18 would give clarity and ensure that we are properly engaged in all the provisions of ECAT. It is designed to ensure that those caught up in human trafficking are protected, and that Governments do everything they possibly can to ensure that people are cared for and looked after. I fully support this important new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

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

This is a comprehensive new clause, and I am tempted to be brief in my introduction to it. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would like to suggest the creation of a humanitarian travel permit to counter the gangs that the Government are seeking to attack and undermine through the Bill. We need to support those who genuinely need to travel here safely, and this new clause is an appropriate way forward. As I say, it is long and comprehensive. Hon. Members might want to ask questions about it, or they might want to take it apart, but it is a genuine suggestion about how we undermine the gangs and encourage people to come here safely.

[Matt Vickers]

The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 20, which would introduce a so-called humanitarian travel permit. The Conservatives have previously drawn up schemes such as Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine family scheme for families seeking refuge from the war. We do not need a specific permit for people across the world to use to come to the UK, so we do not support the measure.

[Seema Malhotra]

I will keep my remarks brief, because there is some overlap between this new clause and the debate we had on safe and legal routes. New clause 20 proposes a new humanitarian travel permit. As we have mentioned, the UK has a strong history of protecting those fleeing war and persecution around the world.

I talked about the UK resettlement scheme that we run in partnership with the UNHCR. When people are assessed independently by the UNHCR and accepted as refugees, they may then be allocated to the UK under that scheme; it is then for the UK to provide visas to them in advance of their travelling to the UK, so that they can come here safely.

We previously discussed why there is no provision in the immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum, as I think the new clause seeks to provide. There are risks: we may be sympathetic to the international system that I just mentioned, which supports people fleeing very difficult and dangerous situations, but it would be difficult to consider protection claims from large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come to the UK. It is the case that, as part of how the system works internationally, those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.

Draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 General Committees

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

These two very different instruments underline the importance of funding and creating a secure border. The Border Force states in its 2025 strategy that it wants the UK border to be

“the most effective in the world.”

We all agree on that goal, but a significant amount of work is needed to make it a reality.

On biometrics, we fully support the Government in updating the regulations to introduce measures that allow the retention of photographs and elements such as fingerprints within our border system. It is a necessary step in the modern world to secure that information. The question is whether these regulations go far enough to create the border of the future. Does the Minister believe that the retention of information will be sufficient to progress towards a contactless border, which the Government state is an aim in the explanatory notes?

Additionally, how will the system help with enforcement? The current gap between inbound and outbound movements is a problem. Ultimately, it would be beneficial to have a system capable of identifying those who arrive and flagging overstayers. Although that would require a range of work, we know that biometrics can play an important role. Ultimately, we support this step by the Government, but we would appreciate further clarity about how that information will be used. We should all want the UK to make progress towards a system that effectively utilises biometric information, making our country safer in the process. I know that the Minister will have given some thought to that, so I would appreciate hearing how the Government intend to effectively use that information.

On fees, we recognise the importance of securing funds to pay for our border and immigration system. It is right that the system generates funds and ensures that those who benefit most from immigration contribute to its costs. I recognise that this order is based on the principle of increasing the maxima and that further regulations will be required to implement these changes. It would be helpful if the Government outlined when they intend to bring forward consultations and assessments on this matter. Additionally, do they believe there are sufficiently robust systems in place to measure the impact of these changes and determine the extent to which they have affected the system?

Furthermore, given the Government’s failure to stem illegal migration so far, do they anticipate that they will need to extend the maxima in the future? For example, given that more than 28% more people are in hotels, is the Minister concerned that costs to the Home Office will remain high? I know that falls under the responsibility of another member of the Home Office team, but does the Minister acknowledge that the measures proposed so far might not be sufficient?

Funded Childcare

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston]

The hon. Lady is right that we need more staff. I think she refers to the estimate in time for September 2025, rather than for the first part of the roll-out in April, which is part of the reason for the current recruitment campaign. We are pleased to have already seen a 4% increase in the number of staff.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government are rolling out the biggest ever investment in childcare in England. Will my hon. Friend outline how much the average working family will benefit from the extended childcare entitlements?

[David Johnston]

My hon. Friend is right that it is the biggest expansion of childcare provision in history. By the time the roll-out is complete in September 2025, it will save the average family up to £6,500 a year in childcare costs.

National Tutoring Programme and Adult Education

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), with whom I agree about the impact of school closures. The biggest challenge facing our children is recovering from the pandemic. In the context of this debate, we are talking about lost learning in reading, writing and maths. My right hon. Friend has already spoken about the number of months—six, seven or eight—that some children are behind, but of course our children face a much wider issue, as they have lost social development and confidence, with many struggling with anxiety placed on them by adults over the course of the pandemic. These children have been forced to spend so much time online—six or seven hours a day—often unaccompanied, as they are doing work. Understandably, we have seen a rise in online harms and serious situations for many of our children. So there are huge challenges for our children at this point.

However, this debate is on the Department for Education’s spending, and I know the Minister will be relieved that I will focus my remarks on educational recovery. As has been mentioned, the Government’s flagship programme for academic recovery is the NTP, for which the plan is to deliver 100 million tutoring hours for five to 19-year-olds by 2024. I am pleased that it is a long-term strategy, acknowledging that we are not going to catch up overnight or even in one or two years. I understand that in the first year of the programme we have already launched 311,000 tutoring courses, and we are hoping to offer access to up to 2 million more this year. I very much support this approach in principle, because I have no doubt that tutoring works and has the potential to turbocharge progress.

I have been both a classroom teacher and a private tutor, and I have to say that the roles are extremely different. A teacher who has 30 year 8s in their chemistry class and is trying to do a practical, where there are 30 Bunsen burners and perhaps some scalpels out—and perhaps some lads want to start a fire in the bin when they are not looking—is multitasking. They are prioritising children’s safety, trying to get them logistically to get the right equipment out and trying to keep to the lesson plan. Of course, they are making formal and informal assessments of what the children know, what progress they are making, who is not paying attention and who is not understanding, but they are very much focusing on bringing the class along as a whole as much as they can. Of course, they do not have that much time to invest in individual students who may be struggling, and their ability to know what each student is struggling with at any particular moment is limited. That is the role of a classroom teacher, and that is how it should be.

One-to-one tutoring is completely different—it is child-led. A good tutor can quickly establish the child’s strengths and weaknesses, and what they do and do not know. They can use intensive questioning to build a child’s knowledge and confidence. Tutoring is especially good for children with low confidence, who perhaps do not have the ability to contribute in a large class. So I have no doubt that a tutoring programme is a really positive way forward and could have truly transformational results. Of course, it also gives the opportunities to disadvantaged children that many advantaged children have been using for many years; private tutoring has become the staple of many middle-class educational aspirations. So the idea of being able to give disadvantaged children access to a truly transformational tool is a very positive development, and I applaud the Government’s decision to allocate resources to this. However, I agree that we need to look carefully at how this money is spent, whether this approach is working and whether we are getting value for money.

One issue we need to address is supply. There are not hundreds of skilled tutors in every part of the country ready to deliver this scheme. If there were, we would be in a completely different scenario. We have to hope that if this programme is going to run for a number of years, those skills will come, people will move into tutoring and they will become the supply we perhaps do not have now. We need to be careful, because tutoring is a skill and teaching is a skill. Just because someone has A-level maths, it does not mean they can tutor somebody for GCSE maths. The skills of teaching and the way of assessing a child’s knowledge are not something just anyone can do. We need to have skilled and trained practitioners.

Schools do not always need to look for external tutors. There are advantages in that approach, particularly for disadvantaged children in meeting new adults and learning to form new relationships, but for many schools the best thing will be to use internal providers and train up existing staff. So I welcome the £579 million for schools to develop localised, school-led tutoring provision, as that is an excellent option for schools. We need to be careful about small schools, which may not have the resource, personnel-wise, to allocate to that, but it is certainly a good development.

There are serious issues with Randstad, as we have heard on the Education Committee. The Government urgently need to reassess its ability to deliver the NTP, because if this is going to be our flagship programme and we are relying on it to deliver results on catching children up on academic education, we have to be sure that it is working and it is money well spent, and that in four or five years’ time we can look back and see that it has achieved results.

We also need to consider the fact that some schools would prefer to have their catch-up funding as a lump sum so that they can decide how best to spend it. They know what their children need most, and many will have more pressing concerns than academic catch-up, as we know from the evidence to the Select Committee about the wellbeing and mental health issues that many children face. There is some great practice out there. For example, Horizon Community College in Barnsley in my constituency appeared on the local news last week. It has set up a wellbeing centre and invited the charity Mind into the school. Children can drop into the wellbeing centre at any point; it is having a huge impact on the mental health of children at the school and they very much welcome it. There are some great examples of good practice out there, although it tends to be found among the bigger schools, which have bigger budgets so can be more flexible. Nevertheless, it is definitely something to learn from.

It is, of course, too soon to tell whether the national tutoring programme is working—it needs to run for longer—but evaluation is key and we have to find a way to assess it over time and, obviously, to make sure it works to start with. If the outcomes are good, I would like to see tutoring become an established part of our education system. It provides a brilliant opportunity to level up. There will of course be an element of trial and error to start with, but if we find a way to make it work, particularly for our most disadvantaged children but perhaps for those who show the most academic promise as well as those who are struggling, it could become a key part of our education strategy, so I very much welcome it.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

We are talking about the big challenge of catch-up across the nation, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also about the vulnerability of young people? There is a complete contrast in the way people have been affected—for example, there were youngsters who did not have access to the internet at home or to an iPad. It is not a consistent catch-up programme for everybody because some did not have the tech and there were children with special educational needs and so on. It is all about empowering local leaders in local schools to deliver a tailor-made solution.

[Miriam Cates]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I completely agree. All children have been affected by the pandemic—of course, certain demographics and ages have been affected more, but all children have suffered—so he is right that we need to give headteachers in particular the autonomy to decide how budgets are spent in their schools in the best interests of their children.

Let me move on to the adult education budget. We have had a chronic skills gap in this country for some time. The last census showed that in Stocksbridge in my constituency less than 50% of adults had a level 3 skill or above. The fact that there are 1.3 million job vacancies in the UK shows that our population must have a skills gap. In England, just one in 10 adults has a technical qualification; in Germany, the proportion is one in five. We have clearly fallen behind many of our developed-nation competitors when it comes to skills, so I welcome the extra investment of £3.8 billion in further education and skills over this Parliament. The £1.6 billion for the national skills fund and the funding for the lifelong learning entitlement indicate a positive change of direction by this Government that will have a huge impact on levelling up and adult skills.

I wish to focus on a particular type of adult education provider. In my constituency we have Northern College, which is one of just four residential adult education colleges in the country. Its Wentworth Castle setting is amazingly inspirational. I do not know why they built it by the motorway—it is a bit noisy—but it is a fantastic setting: the grounds are managed by the National Trust and students have access to the best Italian staircase in Europe and the longest suspended ceiling. It is an amazing setting for adults who need a second chance at education, for whatever reason.

The college offers short and long course, GCSEs, A-levels, access courses, vocational qualifications, technical qualifications and higher education courses. The residential element is so important for people who need to step out of the normal run of their lives—perhaps they do not live in supportive households—and need the space to develop their learning skills. Many of the adults at Northern College, which I have visited a number of times, have been in prison or have been victims of domestic violence. For all sorts of reasons, they need an intensive second chance in education. The students themselves speak of the transformational impact of residential education on their lives, and the outcomes—in terms of people getting good jobs and staying in work for the rest of their lives—are truly outstanding.

Residential adult education colleges are a very small aspect of adult education provision—as I said, there are only four of them in the entire country—but they are really important. Some adults want to get another chance at education and to upskill, but if someone is 35 and has been in prison, is it really appropriate for them to go to their local further education college and sit with a load of 16-year-olds with completely different life experience and priorities? Northern College and the three other colleges across the country offer a unique and successful opportunity for people who need a second chance. I must mention the inspirational leadership of the principal of Northern College, Yultan Mellor, who has seen the college go from strength to strength to the point at which it is truly transforming lives.

I very much welcome the devolution of the adult education budget; it is a good step forward. Northern College is now jointly funded by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and the South Yorkshire Combined Authority, which is an understandable move given that that is where the majority of students are drawn from. However, as a result of this devolution, the residential uplift—the element of funding that provides residential support to the adults who need it—is now under threat. That is a problem because there is good evidence to show that this period of intensive learning, with the counselling and the study skills support that is available for these adults, can be life changing. It is also the case that Northern College is not just a local institution; it is a national provider, so there should be some sort of understanding that this residential uplift needs to continue.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is due to meet me and the principal shortly to talk about this matter, but may I ask Ministers urgently to take a decision on this uplift so that Northern College and the other three colleges can continue to be an important part of our national education strategy? I know that it is small, but it is key provision for many adults who would not otherwise have the access, the opportunity and the success in learning both academically and in skills.

I want to make two broader points about education spending. First, we must recognise the limits of our education system and what it can achieve. We often think that any issues or policies around children have to be fixed by our education system, particularly by our schools. Certainly the social demands on schools have increased in recent years. It is not just post pandemic, when, yes, children have regressed in terms of basic skills, but was an issue even before then. There are increased reports of children going to school without having been potty trained, and increased incidences of parents not being able to cope and needing the school’s support. We saw that particularly at the beginning of the pandemic when we realised how many families were completely reliant on schools not just for academic provision, but for the surrounding services that schools provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miriam Cates]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to distinguish between wellbeing and serious mental issues. The vast majority of teachers and schools do an incredible job at looking after our children’s wellbeing. I know that my own children probably drink far more water at school than they do at home. There are also programmes such as a Mile a Day. Many children in school also take part in regular mind exercises and mindfulness, which contribute to their wellbeing. However, some of the more sticky mental health issues cannot be easily solved by schools, which leads us into the wider issues. There has been a lack of effective family policy for many years now. There are severe financial pressures on many families not only because we have quite an unfavourable taxation system here, but because we have very high housing costs. There are financial pressures on families.

[Matt Vickers]

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that education is the answer to nearly every problem, including the impact on our local economy. In Teesside we have our fantastic new freeport with 18,000 jobs and now, thanks to devolved funding through the combined authority, the Tees Valley Mayor will hopefully be able to generate those skills among local people so we can take on those great jobs.

[Miriam Cates]

As a south Yorkshire MP, I grudgingly welcome my hon. Friend’s freeport, but I am afraid I do not agree that education is the answer to everything. It is incredibly valuable, and it is frustrating that the education budget has stalled while the health budget has exploded over recent years. That is an issue. However, I do not think education is the answer to everything.

Great education for everybody is clearly a target, but there are more important foundational issues, such as family life. Some of the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in her place, has shown that those first two years of life are crucial in determining the outcomes of the rest of someone’s life. Academic education plays very little role in those first two years, although development does.

We should recognise the importance of education, but we certainly should not expect our schools to solve every social issue in our country, especially the mental health crisis. We must be realistic about what education spending alone can achieve and not expect Ministers, the Department or schools to be able to solve those deep, structural social issues, which we must address, but which are not the subject of this debate.

We must also look at our overall education budget and how it is weighted across different stages of a child’s life. According to the House of Commons Library, our higher education spend is £11.6 billion a year, but our early years spend is £1.6 billion a year. To me, that seems back to front. When is the best time to invest in a child’s life? It is at the beginning, in the early years, when those foundations are being laid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has said, 40% of the attainment gap that develops between the best-off and worst-off children develops by the age of two. I am not suggesting that we invert those two budgets, but we should certainly think about whether we should front-load our educational spend in the early years, when it could potentially have more impact.

We must also ask whether the higher education budget of £11.6 billion is money well spent. Some 50% of our young people now go to university, but five years after graduation 30% to 50% of graduates are in non-graduate jobs, and 77% never earn enough to repay their student loans. I welcome the recent reforms to make higher education spending fairer to the taxpayer and to students, but we need to go further. The cost to the taxpayer is £11.6 billion—I think it is more when we add in the local authority contributions—but only half our young people see the benefit of that enormous taxpayer spending.

We should ask whether we should more fairly distribute that £11.6 billion or more. I welcome the move to spend more on technical and vocational education, but that is not a fraction of the expenditure on higher education. Imagine if the schools budget was spent on only half the population: it would be a deep inequality, but that is what is happening in our higher education budget.

Many of our universities are phenomenal, world-leading assets to this country, but we must ask whether the massive expansion we have seen in the sector in recent years is helpful to either individuals or society. I certainly cannot find any evidence of increased social mobility as a result of the massive increase in higher education spending. I welcome the direction the Government are moving in by raising the priority, the status and the budget of vocational and technical education, because that is important, but we must go further. If we are really going to level up education and the education budget, we must look at distributing the post-18 education spending far more fairly and equitably between academic, technical and vocational routes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We are very much looking forward to the APPG being rechristened the Turing APPG, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. I can confirm that the Minister for Universities, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group to see what more can be done to expand these truly great opportunities for all young people right across the United Kingdom to see the world and to learn from the experience of studying in so many institutions right across the globe.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) [V]]

  Stockton South has some of the best teachers in the country, and they are working hard to ensure that youngsters who might lack the support and resources that they need at home are not left behind as a result of school closures. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that when schools reopen, deprived youngsters can catch up and still reach their full potential?

[Gavin Williamson]

I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to all teachers in Stockton South, and not only for the amazing work they did last term, but for what they are continuing to do. He is absolutely right to highlight children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why our covid catch-up fund is so incredibly important in helping them to catch up, and why our roll-out of 1.3 million laptops right across the country is so important in helping to support schools. The best thing that we can do is see all schools return at the earliest possible date, with children benefiting from being back in the classroom and learning directly from their teachers.

Lifetime Skills Guarantee and Post-16 Education

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady noticed, but we have been announcing substantial extra funding into the FE sector. Part of this announcement is ensuring that we are not just talking about it, but doing it and delivering on it.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

Further education colleges can play a vital role in transforming lives and communities. Will my right hon. Friend set out what the Government will do to ensure that world-class education and training is available to all students, no matter where they come from or which college they go to?

[Gavin Williamson]

Absolutely so. That is what the Prime Minister was doing when he was down at Exeter College the other Tuesday—making sure that people understand that there is a whole range of different options at different stages of their lives. It is brilliant that so many youngsters in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Stockton South benefit from going to great universities, not just locally but nationally, but many youngsters will not make that choice, and this is about recognising that and ensuring that they have really exciting options ahead of them in terms of high-quality technical qualifications. That is what we are delivering on; that is what we are working towards. It is a problem that this nation has had for many, many generations. This Government—this party—will address that and put it right.

Support for Left-Behind Children

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

Education can be the ultimate gap closer, divide smasher and opportunity provider. Every single child deserves the very best start in life and a quality education regardless of their background, where they live and their financial circumstances.

When I think about my home town of Stockton and the schools I have visited, I know that, along every corridor and in every classroom, there is infinite potential that must be backed and harnessed. I have great schools and amazing teachers, and we must back them—from Thornaby Academy, a Government-backed academy trust where kids are taught to reach for the stars and where the school is a place of aspiration and ambition, to Junction Farm Primary School, with its amazing standards and outstanding support for special educational needs that is second to none.

The Government’s plans will make sure that every pupil in every school gets a funding boost. Every secondary school will receive a minimum of £5,000 per pupil in 2021, and every primary school will be receiving £4,000 per pupil by 2021-22. By delivering a game-changing £14 billion investment, we can deliver a world-class education for all and a country in which it is not about where someone is from, but how hard they work and where they want to go.

During the pandemic, parents across the country have taken up the challenge of becoming DIY teachers, trying their best to support their children’s learning. I cannot imagine that many will have been able to replicate the experiences and enrichments that youngsters receive at school. Some parents will have been better placed to take on the challenge than others, and it is our job to ensure that no child is left behind or falls through the cracks because their parents found it difficult to support them with their school work.

For some youngsters, education provides a way up or a way out, and we cannot let them miss that; 2020 must not be the year when vulnerable youngsters were allowed to fall behind or lose their way. Instead, we should double down to ensure that it is a year of social mobility, when better support and greater investment meant that any child had the greatest chance of success. I welcome the £1 billion covid catch-up package to help schools provide additional support to all children as they return to school. Moreover, I am delighted to see £350 million going towards high-quality tuition for the most disadvantaged children, accelerating their progress and, crucially, narrowing the educational attainment gap. I do not believe that closing the disadvantage gap can be achieved solely in the classroom, so it is right that the Government look more widely, and an extra £43 million for social care and disadvantage, if delivered efficiently and appropriately, can help turbocharge the trajectory of the most disadvantaged. I cannot tell Members how important an increase of 11.5% to help address children’s social care and special educational needs and disability will be for many in my constituency.

As we begin the bounce back from the pandemic, we must put the aspirations of young people at the heart of our mission to level up the country. We need this funding for schools to address both the challenges of coronavirus in the short term and investment in resources to help the children who need it most in the long term, supporting our teachers, backing our schools and unleashing the potential of every child. Let us ensure that this Government will be remembered for putting their money where their mouth is, with real investment in the next generation creating opportunity for all.

Free School Meals: Summer Holidays

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I ask hon. Members to give me the opportunity to make some progress.

We have understood that, in holiday time, there is a need to offer a wide range of support. This summer, tens of thousands of disadvantaged children will receive additional support through our holiday activities and food programme, which is available thanks to £9 million of Government funding.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

I am incredibly grateful that disadvantaged youngsters in my area will benefit from this support, but my local council was recently unsuccessful in a bid to the holiday activities fund; will my right hon. Friend review that bid and meet me so that we can guarantee that the most disadvantaged youngsters across Stockton benefit from a summer of experiences and opportunities?

[Gavin Williamson]

I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue. What we have been doing on the holiday activities programmes is an important step forward. To pick up on something that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, it is not just about feeding; it is about supporting young people in so many different aspects of their learning and broader health outcomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matt Vickers Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to ensure equitable access to opportunity for young people in (a) Staffordshire and (b) the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to ensure equitable opportunity for young people throughout the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)]

Levelling up opportunity across the country is my Department’s top priority, and we have made progress. We are reforming technical education, backed by up to £500 million of investment in T-levels once fully rolled out. Since 2011, the disadvantage gap has narrowed, and over the next three years we will be investing £14 billion more in primary and secondary education, which will allow for a cash increase of £7.1 billion by 2022-23.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Levelling up opportunities for young people is a vital part of delivering for constituents such as those in Stockton South. How will my right hon. Friend improve school standards across the north-east so that every child has the best possible chance of succeeding?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend and I saw the reality of the impact in his constituency when we had the privilege of visiting Thornaby Academy. The academy was recently taken over by Falcon Education Academies Trust, which specialises in supporting schools that are experiencing some of the most challenging circumstances. That was a great example of how injecting leadership and extra support can ensure that schools which have had troubles in the past can reach for a new and more positive future.