Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Debate between Matt Vickers and Katie Lam(1 week, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers
The public are appalled by these cases. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire does not want us to change legal frameworks over chicken nuggets: if the Human Rights Act creates a situation in which criminals, rapists and paedophiles are able to stay against domestic law and the intentions of the people charged with making that law, it is unacceptable. We feel strongly about this and wish to divide on the matter.
Matt Vickers
We have just had a lengthy discussion about the Human Rights Act and the impact it has on deportations. However, if she agrees so wholeheartedly on the principle, I am sure she might consider backing our amendment.
There are a number of countries where the UK has a significant number of foreign national offenders currently serving in British prisons. However, we deport only a small number of those foreign national offenders each quarter. Our new clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not co-operating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status. We have done this by amending the Nationality and Borders Act, so that the ability to impose visa sanctions is not discretionary but mandatory. We know that there are countries that are hard to secure returns to. We believe strongly that that should not be without consequences for those countries.
New clause 34 shifts the lens to where it belongs—on the victims left in the wake of foreign offenders, not the perpetrators gaming the system. In 2024, theft offences alone averaged just 8.1 months—a shopkeeper’s livelihood dented, a pensioner’s purse snatched, or a family’s peace of mind and sense of security destroyed. Public order crimes averaged just 9.6 months, with more huge consequences for the wellbeing of victims who are left with a fear of entering public spaces or unable to go about their ordinary lives. Yet the one year deportation bar enables those culprits to linger, post-sentence, free to reoffend while victims wait for justice that never comes.
This clause says, “Enough.” Any conviction, for shoplifting or worse, triggers removal—no Human Rights Act excuses—because every day a foreign offender is allowed to stay is another day a British victim’s trust in the system erodes. Why are the Government okay with that shadow hanging over our streets? New clause 42 would force nations to play ball uphill. We see too many countries dither and delay in refusing to take back offenders. Mandatory visa sanctions flip that script. No co-operation, no UK visas for their elite. Watch fast how passports materialise when there are real consequences. Why is Labour soft-pedalling when we could wield this stick, clear the backlog and reduce pressure on prison places?
Katie Lam
New clause 34 prevents any foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that immigration never makes the British public any less safe. Unfortunately, however, many of those who have come to the UK in recent years have broken our laws. According to Ministry of Justice figures, a staggering 23% of sexual crimes in the UK—almost one in four—are committed by foreign nationals.
The overall imprisonment rate for foreign nationals is 20% higher than that for British citizens. Of course, the trend is not uniform: some nationalities are more heavily represented than others. Albanian migrants are nearly 17 times more likely to be imprisoned than average; those from Algeria are nearly nine times more likely and those from Jamaica nearly eight times more likely to be imprisoned than average.
Those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should not be allowed to remain here. As the Government are well aware, our prisons are already overcrowded. We must not allow foreign criminals to continue exacerbating this problem and we must not endanger the British public by allowing foreign criminals to stay in this country.
Under our current system, too many of those who break our laws are being allowed to remain in the UK. Often, Home Office attempts to deport foreign criminals are blocked because of absurd and ever expanding human rights rules. In the interests of public safety, we must not allow foreign criminals to remain in Britain; that includes by making sure that the Human Rights Act cannot be used to prevent us from deporting those who break our laws.
How, specifically, does new clause 34 do that? It amends section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, which we have already mentioned today. Section 32 would be amended from its current form, which defines a foreign criminal as a person who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen, who is convicted of an offence that takes place in the United Kingdom and who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of least 12 months, or is a serious criminal as defined in section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. What would replace section 32 would be much simpler; it would instead say that a foreign criminal was anyone who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom, and explicitly include within that anybody who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the situations in which a person can be considered to have entered this country illegally. That includes if they do so in breach of a deportation order; if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly came here without that leave; or if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly stayed here beyond the time conferred by that leave, among other specific conditions.
New clause 34 also seeks to ensure that the rules will be upheld in all circumstances and asserts therefore that the principle of removing criminals from this country is of utmost importance and must be prioritised above other legislation. That includes human rights legislation, for the reasons we have already set out.
I turn to new clause 42, which requires the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country proves to be unco-operative in the process of removing any of its nationals or citizens from the UK. Such a lack of co-operation may arise in verifying their identity or status or it may pertain to the process of removing people whose identity and status has not been established. New clause 42 seeks to do that by amending section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That Act set out the idea of a visa penalty provision, effectively allowing the Home Secretary to suspend visa applications from countries that do not co-operate with the activity that the Government are trying to take to secure and protect the border. The new clause would strengthen that Act by changing that from an option for the Home Secretary to a duty and by adding explicitly the point about countries that are not co-operating with the process of verifying the identity or status of individuals whom we consider likely to be nationals or citizens of the countries in question.
Matt Vickers
New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK and on the number who may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold. We know that there is abuse of the current provisions that allow spouses or civil partners to come to the UK. Our amendment is designed to tighten up the rules so as to make abuse less likely.
We believe that it is important for the Secretary of State to set a cap for the number of people who can enter the UK as a spouse or civil partner, and that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor should not exceed 7% of the maximum number specified. We seek to tighten up that route to entering the UK by ensuring that the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application; that each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouse or civil partner, and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting; that the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the UK, or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and that people cannot sponsor their first cousins under this route.
We believe those changes are necessary to ensure that the relationship is genuine and subsisting, and that the sponsor is able to support their partner once they arrive in the UK. That is part of ensuring that we treat living in this country as a privilege, not a right, and that those coming to the UK to live will contribute to our country.
New clause 39 would place restrictions on the granting of visas and indefinite leave to remain. That is another change to achieve our objective that those who come to the UK are able to contribute. The new clause would ensure that visas were granted only where an applicant or their dependants will not apply for any form of social protection, including housing from the UK Government or a local authority, and where the applicant’s annual income will not fall below £38,700 during the relevant qualification period. If either of those conditions fails to be met, the visa will be revoked.
The new clause also specifies that a person cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they are a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007; if they or any of their dependants have been in receipt of any form of social protection from the UK Government or local authority; or if their annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. The new clause would not apply to those who have come to the UK through the Ukraine, Afghan or British national overseas schemes.
New clause 40 would introduce some accountability for this place in the overall numbers of migrants coming to the UK per year. It would establish a mechanism whereby Parliament would approve a binding cap on all non-visitor visa routes set out by the Secretary of State. We believe it is important that the House seriously considers the benefits and trade-offs to this country. The new clause is designed to give the House greater accountability for that decision.
New clauses 35 and 39 would build a wall against the quiet epidemic of immigration fraud that has been seeping through our spousal and visa routes—think of sham marriages brokered for £10,000 a pop, or visa overstayers masked by flimsy claims of support. The two-year marriage rule, the £38,700 threshold and the “no first cousin” clause are not just hurdles; they are detectors rooting out paper partnerships before they drain us dry.
The new clauses would anchor immigration to a bedrock of self-reliance, because a Britain that thrives does not prop up newcomers who cannot stand alone. In new clause 35, the £38,700 sponsor salary, which matches that for the skilled worker route, would ensure that thousands of spousal entrants yearly would not tip the welfare scales further. New clause 39 would double down, barring visas and indefinite leave to remain for anyone who dips below that level or taps social housing, for which 1.2 million people are already waiting. This is not exclusion; it is economics, tilting the balance towards those who lift us, not those who lean on us.
New clause 40 is not just a cap; it hands the House the reins of our migration system. The new clause would make Parliament the arbiter, through a binding cap debated here, voted on here, owned here and on which we are fully held to account by the electorate.
Katie Lam
There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those we love. To be separated from a husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to, it can feel like everything. But the role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family. We must place this discussion in its national context. For too long immigration has been too high, and the spousal visa route is increasingly being used by those who would otherwise not be able to come to Britain.
Over the past few years we have seen the number of dependent visas balloon. As of December 2024, 51,000 migrants, bringing 130,000 dependants with them, had come to Britain via the health and social care route over the previous year. That is over 2.5 dependants per health and social care worker—dependants who will access public services in their own right, including our already overstretched NHS. The dependant route for health and social care visa holders has since been restricted, but I mention it because it indicates the huge level of demand and desire there is for family members to come to Britain.
Matt Vickers
To the hon. Gentleman’s electors and mine, these things come at huge cost. As we have set out, that money could be used by the people who pay in to the system, and have done for a very long time. We have drawn an analogy with student tuition fees and I think it is very relevant. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-hidden admiration in recent times, but I think this is the right thing to do, and I am well on board with it. State support is not a right, and if a person is able to contribute later by paying some of that back, we believe it is right for them to do so.
Katie Lam
We have spoken many times today, and over the course of this Bill Committee’s proceedings, about the fundamental principles of fairness upon which we believe that our immigration system should be built. We have also spoken extensively about the generosity of the British state, and how much it costs to support those who, according to our rules, cannot support themselves. But that generosity, while admirable in what it says about our approach to our fellow man, costs the British taxpayer dearly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, it costs many billions of pounds a year. It also causes additional pressure on infrastructure and public services, which is not covered by what we suggest here.
We consider that new clause 37, which would introduce the asylum support repayment scheme, is a totally fair way of proposing that people who come to this country are responsible for contributing for the services that they receive. That includes the accommodation that they live in. We do not see any reason why that should be viewed as a negative change, and we really hope that the Government include it in their Bill.
Matt Vickers
This is a valuable and important debate because many people felt strongly about this issue. The decision in that case flew in the face of the values of the Ukraine scheme. It could undermine commitments to future such schemes, so it is of great consequence.
Katie Lam
I am a little confused by the Minister’s stating that several of our amendments should not be debated with this Bill. I fully concede that she is more experienced than I am, but my understanding is that any amendment considered in scope can be tabled, debated and voted on. Given the fact that these amendments were considered in scope, I am interested in why she thinks it is not appropriate for us to discuss them today.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)
Debate between Matt Vickers and Katie LamThursday 13th March 2025
(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
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.
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.
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.