Nationality and Borders Bill (Fifth sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Bambos Charalambous]

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

I thank colleagues from across the refugee and asylum sector for their considerate and constructive scrutiny of all the proposals made in the Bill’s evidence session in September.

As part of the Opposition’s detailed scrutiny, we will express our serious concerns about the Bill, which we believe does nothing to address the crisis in our broken asylum system and seeks to penalise the most vulnerable people in our society.

I shall first consider the Bill’s impact in addressing historical injustices in British nationality law concerning discrimination, specifically in relation to British overseas territories citizenship. We generally support the proposals in clauses 1 to 5, which seek to close important loopholes.

I pay tribute to the efforts of the British Overseas Territories Citizenship Campaign, which has campaigned tirelessly over many years for the nationality and citizenship equality rights of the children of British overseas territories citizens who have suffered under UK law owing to loopholes that we shall discuss in detail. These people feel a strong connection to the UK and deserve our support.

British nationality law can be complex. Some of the complexity arises from the British history of empire and Commonwealth. In passing the British Nationality Act 1981, Parliament created British citizens and British overseas territories citizenship. In doing so, it abolished citizenship in the UK and colonies—abbreviated to CUKC—which was a unifying citizenship for all persons of the UK and its colonies. This meant that the status of some children had the potential to be changed to overseas citizens, even though they had been born and raised in the UK.

Persons unified by CUKC were therefore separated by the 1981 Act into two groups, but amendments made since mean that the two groups are no longer aligned in British nationality law.

The Bill’s early clauses seek to bring into line the two elements of British nationality—British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship. For the benefit of those on the Committee, I point out that British overseas territories citizenship is the citizenship of people connected to the territories that the UK has retained. It includes the following territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Clause 1 would create a registration route for the adult children of British overseas territories citizens and for mothers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship. Before the 1981 Act commenced on 1 January 1983, British nationality law discriminated against women, whose children could not acquire British citizenship through them. The Act removed that discrimination, but did not address the impact of that discrimination prior to the Act. Many people, therefore, would have been born British but for this discrimination and continue to be excluded from British nationality after the passing of the Act.

It is clear that a historical anomaly was created. Changes were made under section 4C of the 1981 Act to rectify the situation of children of British citizens, but no such rectification was made for the children of British overseas territories citizens. Members of the Committee will know that under the 1981 Act a number of cases arise in which an individual who would have qualified for automatic British overseas territories citizenship, British citizenship or the right to register or naturalise as a citizen is unfairly prevented from doing so through no fault of their own, as has been the case with the adult children of British overseas territories citizens.

We need to rectify that injustice. The historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship should be corrected, and I am glad that is being addressed in the Bill. Clause 1 sets out to correct that and create a registration route for the adult children of British overseas territories citizen mothers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship.

The Opposition generally support the changes proposed in clause 1 to close that important loophole. None the less, our amendment refers to a technical matter in relation to the drafting of clause 1—specifically, that it does not follow the language previously accepted to address the injustice, as used in section 4C of the 1981 Act.

I am sure that the Committee will agree that clarity is crucial in matters of citizenship and nationality law. The language used in clause 1 is not sufficiently clear. I will explain why. For example, the clause introduces proposed new section 17A, subsections (a) and (b) of which include the terms “had P’s parents been treated equally”. As Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens outline, the difficulty with such wording is that it tells us nothing about the direction in which equality is to be achieved or indeed in what place.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity is absolutely crucial, given the mistrust of the Home Office that often exists because of its high error rate in some citizenship and wider visa decision making processes?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Citizenship, clarity and consistency in the law are essential, which is why we seek to rectify the position. The provisions of one Act cannot be inconsistent with those of another.

The amendment would address the difficulty by inserting the wording,

“had P’s mother been treated equally with P’s father”,

in clause 1. It would clarify the clause and the positive intention behind it. I think that there is broad agreement in the Committee on the need to address the historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship.

[The Chair]

Ordinarily, unless the Minister wishes to intervene, we now have a debate in which any Member may take part. At the end of the debate, the Minister exercises his right to respond and the mover of the motion decides whether he wishes to press the amendment to a Division or withdraw it. If it is the latter, I seek the leave of the Committee for him to do so.

[Neil Coyle]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Although I have been on a Bill Committee before, I am a bit rusty. We deal with just one amendment first—not the whole of clause 1.

[The Chair]

That is a very good point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes it. It gives me an opportunity to explain again. You may speak to any of the grouped amendments. In this instance, you may speak to amendments 29 and to 84, although it has not been moved. Any one of the second grouping of amendments—8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and new clause 16—may be spoken to. They may be moved later. I hope that is clear.

[Neil Coyle]

Thank you, Sir Roger: that is very helpful.

Do we have to declare an interest each time we speak or once per sitting? I want to make it clear and above board that I have received support from the Refugees, Asylum and Migration Policy project. It provides policy support two days a week. I am unsure how often I have to do that in the course of a Bill Committee.

[The Chair]

We have declared interests during the evidence sessions, and personally I regard that as a declaration of interest. If a Member is in doubt and wants to do a belt-and-braces job on this, they should feel free to declare an interest and cover themselves. That is their responsibility. As far as the Chair is concerned, that job has been done already. If a Member has not declared an interest but wishes to do so, the appropriate moment for it is when they stand to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I start by thanking Opposition colleagues for their warm welcome to me in my new role. It is welcome that, in the early provisions of the Bill, there is broad agreement across the Committee about the need to correct the injustices and to put things right.

I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate, for Halifax, for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for tabling amendments 29 and 84. They both refer to clause 1, which I am pleased to introduce because it corrects a long-standing anomaly in British nationality law. I appreciate hon. Members’ attention to detail in seeking to make sure that the new provision is clear and in line with the parallel provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 for the children of British citizen mothers. However, I do not think an amendment is needed, as the proposed wording here achieves what is intended. In saying that this provision applies to someone who would have been a citizen had their parents been treated equally, we are talking about a situation where the law applied equally to mothers or fathers, women or men.

The term “parents” is consistent with the wording used in section 23 of the 1981 Act, which determined which citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies became British dependent territories citizens on commencement. One of the three conditions that a person needs to meet to qualify for registration under this clause is that they would have become a British dependent territories citizen under section 23(1)(b) or (c) of that Act. That section refers to a person’s “parent”.

I wish to point out that we will further clarify the points that have been made in the underpinning guidance. I trust that will afford greater comfort because it is clear that the Bill is technical, so plain language will be used in the guidance itself to achieve what members of the Committee seek to achieve.

[Neil Coyle]

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new role. If the Minister is saying that this may require further explanation in the guidance, will he agree to review it in more depth before the Bill reaches the Lords if organisations are able to present examples of case studies where the current wording may not meet the Government’s intent?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will of course be delighted to receive any such examples. I genuinely think that, as with so many cases of immigration law, the underpinning guidance plays an important role in making it clear, in plain English that people can understand, precisely what various aspects of the law entail. I am satisfied with the current wording of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The principle of fees reflecting the cost of delivering the service is a good one that should be applied widely across Government. It is applied, for example, at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for some of the processes that it carries out for motorists. The Passport Office reflects the cost of issuing a passport in the fee that it charges. In the vast majority of cases, the cost of these services should be reflected in the fee. When I was an immigration Minister, I would scrutinise officials and say, “Why is it so expensive to do this?” They would say, “Well, these are often quite complex cases with quite a lot of paperwork.” We must also bear in mind that there are people who try to obtain British citizenship fraudulently using fake documents. Therefore, the amount of scrutiny that needs to take place reflects that. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that we will continue to apply that principle, so that we do not see profit incentives but merely cost recovery.

[Neil Coyle]

There is a slight contradiction in what the right hon. Member is claiming, because in the practical, lived reality of examples in my constituency it is at the point that a child discovers that they need to go through the citizenship process in order to access a passport that they discover all the fees that they are obliged to pay. He says that he wants the passport process to reflect only the costs of administering that passport. For the children and families affected by this, in order to get that passport at cost they have to pay thousands of pounds, which is profit for the Home Office.

[Mr Goodwill]

As I was saying, I would always scrutinise the officials and say, “Does it actually cost this much to apply?” They gave me evidence that this was indeed an expensive operation. As I said, often fake documents are presented, and forensic work needs to be done to ensure that the identity of the person is as stated, and that the documents provided in evidence are correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Before I come to what I was going to say, may I respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby as well? He does not need that reassurance, and he does not need to worry about the British taxpayer, because in 2018 the Home Office made profits of £500 million by charging £500 million more than it cost to process fees. He talked about the DVLA. He cannot say that the DVLA never gets fraudulent claims; it builds them into its costs. The Home Office has already built in the cost of checking fraudulent claims, and the profit in 2018 was £500 million for the whole year, so the British taxpayer does not have to worry about that. Who has to worry about it are the people who have to pay the fees, which is what I wanted to talk about.

I will give two examples that I think will illustrate the broader point of the unfair impact on people’s lives when they have to pay fees over and above what it costs to become a British citizen or to be allowed to remain in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East was right to focus on children. After all, children have absolutely no say on what happens in their lives. Throughout all the talk about immigration, particularly asylum for instance, we talk about single men as if they are not vulnerable. I will tell the Committee about two young men who were extremely vulnerable—they are less so now—and how the fees affected their lives, stopped them living their lives, and almost ended one of their lives.

They are not young men now. If they are watching this—I doubt that they will be—I think they will be delighted that I am calling them young men; they are just younger than me. I will not give you the first one’s correct name. He adopted a Scottish name, which I will say is Fraser, even though it is not. Fraser has become part of my family. He calls my mother “Mum”. She taught him to drink whisky and he is eternally grateful for that.

[Neil Coyle]

Does she give lessons?

[Anne McLaughlin]

My mum is even less likely to be watching this, but if she is, I will certainly let the hon. Member know.

Fraser—I must remember to use the adopted name—came from Sudan. His village, where he grew up, was razed to the ground. Everybody fled, and he did not know where the rest of his family were. He assumed that his two brothers, sister, mum and dad had died, but he did not know for sure and he kept hearing rumours over the years. He was helped by the British Red Cross, so he came here as an asylum seeker and then got his refugee status. But he wanted to go back and find out, because he kept hearing rumours that his sister had managed to get away and that his mum might still be alive, although he doubted it. The British Red Cross was doing everything it could to help him, but in order to get back to Sudan he needed a British passport and to be a British citizen. He had got his refugee status, but that took something like six years beyond when he was able to apply for citizenship, because he could not afford the fees. Had he been charged what it actually cost the Home Office, he would have got home a whole lot sooner. I know that nobody in this room would have wanted what happened to him to happen, but I am just explaining what the impact of these extortionate fees can be.

It took Fraser a long time, but he did finally get back with his British passport. Members here will be very proud of me, because I went to his citizenship ceremony and stood to sing “God Save the Queen”. I do not do that terribly often, but I did it for him, because it was so important to him. He went to Sudan to see what had become of his family and he discovered that his sister had fled but had come back. His sister was there, living in very dangerous circumstances, which he was then able to help her with. She has children there; she does not want to leave Sudan, but she wants to be safe and he was able to help her. He discovered that his mum had been very ill for many years. She had not died at the time; she, too, had escaped. She had been very ill for many years but—I am trying to think how to put this—she had clung on, because she just wanted to see him one more time. But she had died two months before he got over there.

As I said, I am not for a second suggesting that anybody here or anybody drafting the legislation would not care about what happened to Fraser, but if he had had easier access, had not had to save up for years because he worked on the minimum wage in various precarious employments, and had been able to get over sooner, he could have been reunited with his family, which is a huge thing for him. He calls my mum “Mum”, because he does not have one in his life.

I will call the second person I want to talk about Matthew. He had leave to remain but had to renew it after three years. He, too, worked on the minimum wage in precarious employment, with a zero-hours contract. How could he save up the £2,000 that he had to pay to renew it? So he buried his head in the sand; he did not save it up—well, he could not possibly have saved it up, to be fair—and then his employer said to him, rightly, “I’m no longer allowed to employ you, because you don’t have leave to remain.” He said, “But I can’t afford to apply for leave to remain,” but of course the employer cannot do anything about that. He was obviously then unemployed, but he has no recourse to public funds, because he does not have any status in the UK, so his housing association is saying to him, “Where’s the rent?” A year has gone by and he has clocked up all sorts of debt. His housing association is saying, “Look, we don’t want to evict you, but we are going to have to.” That is all because he could not afford the fees—fees that were way more than it was costing the Home Office. There was no need to do this to him.

The situation then got really complicated because he discovered something—this fits in with new clause 16 and awareness raising. He did not know that it is possible for the fees to be waived if the person is in certain circumstances, and his case fitted those circumstances; they are not waived as a right, but there is that possibility. He did not know that, so he did not ask. He got a lawyer, who obviously did know it, and asked. The Home Office asked to see his bank statements for the past couple of years, and then said, “No, we are not waiving the fee,” and just left it at that. He came to me, and I asked the Home Office. The Minister there was very helpful and said, “Look, it is because he has been gambling his money away. That is why he can’t pay his fees.”

--- Later in debate ---

Those decisions are not made because we do not want to cost the taxpayer any more money. The decision to make a profit from people has a hugely detrimental impact on their lives, including that constituent and his children. He had to send his children to live with somebody else because he could not feed them and had no heating. I put on the record my thanks those at his housing association, Spire View Housing Association, because they took an interest in the case and took it aside. Not only that, but they gave him a fuel card so that he could heat his home, and food and vouchers so that he had a little dignity and could go and buy food himself. They really helped him to get back on his feet, and it was incredible that they did that. I hope I have illustrated how excessive fees can have a massive impact in a way that I do not think anyone in this room would want them to.

[Neil Coyle]

I am a little rusty when it comes to this process, Sir Roger, so thank you for your clarifications. I missed the first evidence session, in which declarations of interest were made, because I was at my brother’s wedding, which was fantastic. For the purposes of formal declaration, as noted in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project in a policy capacity to support constituents and to work on relevant issues here in Westminster.

I welcome the Minister to his new role and congratulate him on completing the marathon, which of course goes through my constituency—he is welcome back to Bermondsey and Old Southwark any time. He was raising funds for Justice and Care, which could lead to interesting discussions about some aspects of the Bill. [Interruption.] I have not been heckled by technology before—these are interesting interventions. We are clear for take-off I believe.

I shall plough on. The Bill addresses access for a relatively small group, which some will welcome, but I support the amendments. [Interruption.] This is rather distracting.

[The Chair]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but clearly someone has not fastened their seatbelt. Let us try again, but if it happens again I may have to suspend the sitting for five minutes.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank colleagues for their kind words about not particularly wanting to hear my contribution and being grateful for the technical problem.

I support the amendments because I believe that the Bill misses an opportunity to address some wider process issues that need reviewing for several reasons. Fundamentally, I come back to the impact of imposing costs on people’s access to their rights and entitlements, given the delays and times involved and the impact on Home Office staff.

Let me give a practical example: the Home Office’s processes take so long and cost so much that businesses in my constituency have moved country as a result. One financial sector firm was trying to recruit someone from Japan. They were told that it would take at least six months to process an application, and that she may not even qualify to work in the UK under the process they were following. They discovered that it was cheaper and faster to up sticks, because of the price, process and times. They chose to move to Frankfurt, and in two weeks they were able to complete the registration and visa process that they could not do over here.

There is a wider problem with how long the process takes. Imposing costs adds to the bureaucratic impact on the Home Offices and the delays. At the end of March 2021, 66,000 people were waiting for initial decisions from the Home Office—the highest figure for over a decade. Of those, 56,000 had been waiting more than six months. I come back to the point that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made about accessing a passport. If a child wants to go on a school trip and wants a passport, but cannot get it without going through a process that takes more than six months, how on earth will they go on a school trip? In that circumstance, children are denied the opportunities afforded to their classmates, even if they were born over the river here at St Thomas’ Hospital and sit next to the other children whom they do not have the same rights as. It is iniquitous.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I just want to share a story. When I was in primary 7, everyone in my class went on a trip to Paris, except me, because my parents were too strict and thought I was too young. At least I understood why. Those children cannot go because of who they are; it is not because of a decision by their parents but because they are deemed not to be equal to their classmates. I know how bad it felt to be told by my mum and dad that I was not going to Paris. It must feel 100 times worse for a child when who they are is in question.

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. We are feeling our way. I do not want to be heavy handed, but interventions are not speeches.

[The Chair]

It is quite all right. We allow greater flexibility in Committee than we do on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, an intervention should arise directly from, and be a question to, the Member who has the floor.

[Neil Coyle]

I am not sure why the hon. Lady’s parents were concerned about Paris in particular, but the point is that they were able to make that choice. In these circumstances, children born and educated in this country who have never lived anywhere else do not have the right to decide whether they can go on a school trip.

Returning to my point about the timeframes involved, the number of people waiting over a year for a decision has risen tenfold since 2010, with 33,000 people in that position in 2020, including 7,000 children, and 2,500 people waiting more than three years. I have at least two examples in my constituency of people waiting over a decade for a Home Office decision on their status. Those people are reliant on local authority emergency support, because the Home Office has shunted the cost to councils rather than get on with the process, make a decision and end the need for more expensive emergency support.

Who carries out the process and what trust is there in the Home Office? We are well aware of the Windrush examples and the denial of entitlements to people who were legally entitled to be in this country and should have had their rights upheld. They should have been respected for their contribution to rebuilding this country, to providing our public services in particular, and to our economy more widely.

The hostile environment has damaged trust in that regard; calling only on casework experience, the Home Office had an officer placed in my council’s “no recourse to public funds” team who took away the driver’s licence of someone who was seeking support from the council, which caused even more complications in getting their situation addressed, adding more time and more delay. In this Bill, the Home Office seems to be adding more complications, process and bureaucracy, rather than addressing where things have gone wrong—and things have gone very badly wrong.

To give one example, my constituent Ade Ronke came to see me when I was first elected in 2015. At that point, her son was three years old and she had been battling for three years to try to get her status resolved. The Home Office had declared that she was in effect a person of bad character because it believed that she had been subject to a criminal prosecution. She had never been arrested, she had never been in court, and the police and courts provided proof that it was not her that the Home Office was referring to, but it took a long time. Her son was 10 years old before that case was resolved. He had grown up for seven years in a family where there was no entitlement to child benefit or housing benefit and no recourse to public funds. Throughout that process, his mother was reliant on a church group for accommodation.

The Home Office could have used the Bill to address the division that has been created between what the Government aspire to do and the faith groups and others who are providing support, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned. That philanthropic support means that there are many organisations and individuals out there who are aware of the deep disadvantage and even destitution that these Home Office policies cause, which the Bill could have addressed.

There is also an issue about numbers, which perhaps the Minister can address when he speaks. It is unclear whether the Bill will require the Home Office to take on more staff or whether it intends to increase the workload of existing staff. The staff complement has risen in the past 10 years, but productivity has collapsed. We see fewer decisions made and fewer interviews of people going through these cases per calendar month, despite the fact that there are more officers working on those cases, according to Home Office figures.

At a time when nine in 10 crimes in this country go unpunished, we should be doing everything humanly possible across the House to ensure that the Home Office can focus on law and order and its fundamental purpose of keeping our communities safe. That is not happening for my constituency on antisocial behaviour and other crimes, and it would be welcome if the Home Office could return its focus to those issues, rather than adding more bureaucracy, more costs and more time to distract from that fundamental purpose.

Linked with that question, over the past 10 years we have seen a drop in access to legal aid. I know that the Bill’s equality impact assessment suggests there will be an extension to legal aid support in some cases. I hope that the Minister, when he addresses this particular section of the Bill, will confirm that legal aid will be available to those going through citizenship processes.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and all the other places—I thought my constituency had a long name—said, there is also a cost issue, and the Bill misses an opportunity to address that. I support these amendments based on the cost issues alone, because we are one of the most expensive countries in the world in terms of the bureaucracy involved in this. I am proud to be British; I think this is the best country in the world and that London is the best city in the world, but it is also one of the most expensive.

To process citizenship here costs 10 times as much as in many of our neighbours: France and Spain have the lowest, but I appreciate that some on the Government Benches do not like European comparators, so let us look at the United States, as our price is already double theirs. It is also hideously expensive here compared with Canada, which charges only £400 to process citizenship, or other Commonwealth compatriots such as Australia.

I know that some Government Members will be using Australia as an example in later parts of the Bill, but perhaps they could have a look at it here as well, because Australia charges just £153 for an adult citizenship registration process, and Australia does not charge children a bean. There is a direct example within the Commonwealth of a country that has adopted a more progressive system, and perhaps we could learn from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

Some people are fortunate enough to find sponsors for these processes, but fundamentally that still leaves the problem in place. The Government said they would review this. Where are they with that? The point I want to make is this: someone who goes to university is more likely to secure a higher income and pay more taxes in the long term, so, if this issue is a deterrent to some people going to university, which I believe it has been in some constituency cases, failure to address the problem will have a long-term economic hit on UK plc.

My final point is on the lived reality of people in these circumstances. They often have no recourse to public funds conditions imposed as well, and the restrictions and limitations of that are devastating. Sadly, I have multiple examples from my constituency.

Mr Musari came to see me in 2015, when I was first elected. He was working in the private sector and renting in the private sector, when he suddenly had a no recourse to public funds condition imposed on him. His wife was pregnant with their third child, Mofe, at the time, so she had stopped working in order to give birth—you cannot really do both at once. The impact of the no recourse to public funds condition was that he was in the process of being evicted, because he was not able to pay his rent, because he could not access benefits and continued support. He became reliant on a church group for accommodation.

He told a group in my constituency—he got up and told this story publicly—that on Christmas day, when he was living through that terrible experience, he woke up in that emergency philanthropic accommodation, in one room with his wife and their three children. They had no private kitchen use. There was no Christmas dinner. Because of their financial circumstances, there were no Christmas presents for the children. He said that that day he felt that Government policies meant that if he took his own life, his children would get more support. He told that story publicly to outline the human impact on him.

His family, of course, ended up becoming reliant on emergency social services support from Southwark Council. That is a massive cost to a council—a colossal cost. London councils are spending £53 million a year on emergency social services for children subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, because the Home Office has imposed that process on them. That is the process we have before us today. It is a massive economic cost. Councils of every political hue are up in arms at how they are being forced to spend money through their noses on emergency services rather than on more affordable, long-term, permanent accommodation. Emergency accommodation provided through social services is the most expensive—more expensive than sending someone to prison or detaining someone in hospital. It is a ridiculously expensive system, but a deliberate choice. The Bill is an opportunity to address those issues, and I fear that it will impose new, and more, costs.

The equality impact assessment says that the Government plan to drop no recourse to public funds conditions for some of those affected by the legislation. I hope the Minister will say more about that. I hope he will agree to do what the Prime Minister has asked, which is to publish the figures on all those subject to no recourse to public funds conditions. I hope he will tell us whether he will agree to a review of the whole system to help people like Mr Musari and all those affected as we go forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for tabling amendments 8 to 12 and new clause 16, which provides the Committee with the opportunity to consider fees charged in respect of applications for British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.

Before I address the specific points in the proposed new measures, I want to provide some background information. Application fees for immigration and nationality applications have been charged for a number of years under powers set out under clause 68 of the Immigration Act 2014, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system, reducing the burden on taxpayers. Sitting beneath the 2014 Act are fees orders and fees regulations, which are scrutinised by both Houses before they come into effect; that is an important point. That ensures that there are checks and balances within the system and maintains the coherence of the fees framework. If we were to remove those fees during the passage of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggests, it would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of the sustainability and fairness to the UK taxpayer.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will, although I know that you wanted us to make good progress, Sir Roger.

[Neil Coyle]

I want to comment on the point about the burden on taxpayers. First, there is a very significant profit margin—86% profit for some of the processes of the Home Office—so there is no burden there. Secondly, it is quite offensive language to those that are living, working and paying tax here to say that they are a burden, even though they are already contributing economically through national insurance and tax contributions. I find the language unhealthy.

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister has indicated that we want to make progress, and that is true, but the Minister must not feel under any pressure not to respond to points that have been raised. This is a very important part of the Bill, so please, as a new Minister, feel able to take your time if you need to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Member is always on point in asking pertinent questions. I reiterate the point that the Home Office tends not to charge fees in instances where unfairness or injustice have occurred, and it remains our intention to continue to adopt that approach in relation to the provisions that we are enacting through the Bill. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is seeking.

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Yesterday we saw Parliament at its finest, and I genuinely think that he is a decent man, but what he is saying today is not what was indicated previously and it does not address what the Court of Appeal has required the Home Office to do. If he is saying that there will be secondary legislation at some point, when is it coming, because we have an opportunity here to address the issue? The Court of Appeal found that the Home Office had failed to assess the best interests of children in setting the fee. To fail to do so again in this legislation will have only one outcome, which is the Government being back in court.

Also, I forgot to mention the case that I was speaking about earlier, so for reference it is R (The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the hon. Member for that further intervention. Let me just set out the position on the point about child citizenship fees that he raises. I understand the concerns expressed about child citizenship fees. However, this is currently subject to legal challenge in the Supreme Court and the position will be reviewed after the judgments have been received.

[Neil Coyle]

So when the Government said in February that the issue was being reviewed, was it not being reviewed then? It is extraordinary that many months down the line the Minister is telling us that there will be a review only if they lose the case in the Supreme Court, which will incur further costs of millions of pounds for the taxpayer simply to go through the legal process.

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Member would be surprised if we did not want to review the situation and take into account fully the judgment of the Supreme Court in due course. I think that it is entirely proper that we take a view on this and that the situation should be reviewed in the light of any judicial ruling handed down. This exchange has been very useful, as it has allowed me to address many of the points that I would have picked up at the end of my remarks.

I turn now to subsection (1) of new clause 16, the aim of which is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship to the cost to the Secretary of State of processing the application. As I have already outlined, imposing such a requirement would cut across the funding and coherence of the whole system and is not a matter for the Bill.

Subsection (2) would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee to register as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if the child is being looked after by a local authority. It is important to remember that any child, irrespective of nationality, who is looked after by their local authority can apply for both limited and indefinite leave to remain without being required to pay application fees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I am conscious that I want to get through my remarks on this. I will write to the hon. Member on that point.

[Neil Coyle]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps he will be able to tell us how many applications for a fee waiver were denied by the Home Office in each of the last few years, or perhaps he could furnish us with that detail in another way. My understanding is that it is about 90%.

[Tom Pursglove]

Again, I do not have the figure to hand, but I will happily take that away and see if I can provide him with a written answer on that point. Information about becoming a British citizen is made available in published guidance on gov.uk and we are committed to ensuring information of this nature is fully accessible for all. I am conscious that we have had quite an extensive debate around fees in general, but I hope what I have said around the provisions in the Bill and the Government’s intentions for handling fees in relation to the nationality measures we are seeking to enact gives comfort to the Committee, and that the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourth sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Q Dame Sara, you just mentioned the 10 pilots that the Home Office is undertaking on local safeguarding boards and you said that you would not want to see good practice that is being developed there being undermined by this Bill. Can you please be more specific and say what the Bill could do to undermine other Home Office work—important work?

Dame Sara Thornton: This Bill specifically refers to a minimum of 30 days between the reasonable grounds decision and the conclusive grounds decision, and what I am saying is that, in these pilots, with some cases—not in all cases, but in some cases—the decisions are being taken on the same day, and I would not want that to be undermined. Presumably you would have to say, “Well, today we will make the reasonable grounds decision. We have got to come back after 30 days and make the conclusive grounds decision.” Actually, they are able to do both at the same time.

Of course, it matters a lot for children to get these decisions made, particularly when quite a lot of these cases are cases of child criminal exploitation and there are related proceedings in the courts. So it also helps the courts. As you know, there is an issue with backlogs in courts, so the more those decisions can be made in an effective and efficient fashion, the more that helps the courts, as well as being in the best interests of the child, in my view.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Thank you. You mentioned some exemptions in the more recent equality impact assessment that you would like to see for children. What are those specific exemptions that you would like to see in the Bill?

Dame Sara Thornton: This is taken from the equality impact assessment, which I think was published on Friday last week and which talked about the Government continuing to mitigate adverse impacts on vulnerable people. One of the examples given is that it says the Government will mitigate the risk of adverse impacts on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children by exempting them from the inadmissibility process, which I think is set out in clauses 14 and 15. So that was a very specific issue referred to in the equality impact assessment. I do not think there is any kind of read-across to the Bill at the moment.

[Neil Coyle]

Q Ms Mullally, you also mentioned some specific cases where you fear this Bill could contradict existing case precedent—you mentioned a Greek case and a Croatian case. If it has not already been supplied, would you please put in writing to the Committee the detail of those cases?

Siobhán Mullally: Yes, certainly. I will make a written submission, but those are well-established cases from the European Court of Human Rights: L.E. v. Greece, and S.M. v. Croatia. Then, of course, there is V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom—the judgment on that was final earlier this year. They are all quite specifically relevant in terms of clause 51, in particular the implications on non-punishment, victims of trafficking, rights of access to the courts and right to a fair trial. V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom found the state to be in violation of articles 4 and 6 of the European convention on human rights, read in conjunction with the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking.

L.E. v. Greece and S.M. v. Croatia are particularly important with regard to recognising the trauma endured by victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation and the need for that to be taken account of in terms of identification processes, referrals for assistance and protection by the state; and recognising that it is a positive obligation on the state, as stated again in the V.C.L. judgment by the court, to ensure effective protection.

[Neil Coyle]

Q In your opinion, are there clauses in the Bill that need to be completely removed for it to be compliant, or are you able to suggest amendments or tweaks that could make it in some way more amenable?

Siobhán Mullally: I think that part 4, as it is currently drafted, is not in compliance, as I said, with international law. It is not in compliance with the state’s obligations under the ECHR, the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking or the UN’s protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children—the Palermo protocol.

So I think that that part of the Bill, in particular, raises very serious questions and concerns. In particular, I would point to clause 51 but also to other clauses—clauses 46 to 51. Other provisions in the Bill raise other concerns. I am speaking particularly about those areas, because they raise very specific concerns in relation to my mandate on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

[Neil Coyle]

That is very clear and helpful. Thank you.

[Holly Lynch]

Q It has been put to me by a police officer working on the frontline in this area that, because we have British citizens and migrants entering the NRM, if somebody goes missing from it, it is dealt with primarily in terms of immigration compliance rather than safeguarding concerns. Do you think that is a fair assessment? What are your thoughts on that? Dame Sara, first.

Dame Sara Thornton: This has become quite a topic of discussion in law enforcement. The problem has been that practice has varied from force to force as to whether missing person reports were completed or whether there was a report to immigration enforcement. I know that some interim guidance has been put out by the National Police Chiefs’ Council setting out what needs to happen, but to give you an example from June this year, about 140—I think—Vietnamese migrants who had come across in small boats were put in hotels in a variety of cities across the UK, and within 24 hours they had all disappeared. My view is that that was because they were clearly under the control of traffickers. They got sucked into the asylum system; that would not be the plan of the traffickers. As I say, they were gone in 24 hours. The reason I am aware that there has been some debate is that the forces were all then saying, “What’s going to be our response? What should we be doing in terms of investigating what has happened?”

One of the difficulties, if I may, is that when people go missing in that situation, we have no biometric data on them, so it is very difficult to ever work out whether you have found those people or not, with all the issues of language and difficulty with names and dates of birth. It is a live and current operational issue at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am sorry, but I want to get another question in. Neil, do you want to ask your question? That will probably be the last one—both questions can be answered together.

[Neil Coyle]

Q I think Mariam mentioned that there is a vanishingly small number of safe routes, which creates the incentive to take dangerous routes into the UK. Could any of the witnesses say which safer routes they would like to see extended, and how those could be added to the Bill?

Mariam Kemple-Hardy: The first question asked how we can get information to people that they should take the safe routes instead. My very quick and simple answer is that there is a vanishingly small number of safe routes, so that question is completely irrelevant for most people. If you want to know how to help people to take more safe routes, the answer is to create more safe routes. Nothing in the Bill creates more safe routes.

To the second question, we have for a long time been calling for the Government to announce a regular annual global commitment to refugee resettlement. We have been calling for the Government to resettle 10,000 refugees from around the world on an annual basis. We believe that is absolutely possible, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said in the past that it is absolutely feasible. We would like to see the Government take the legislation and do what they have set out in their rhetoric by creating safe routes to safety.

There are other different types of routes—I believe the British Red Cross spoke in particular about family reunion—but we would like to see one key thing that the Government could do relatively easily. We previously took in 5,000 Syrian refugees each year. Let us up our ambition, meet the ambitions of global Britain and say, “Yes, we will take in 10,000 refugees from around the world.” It was great to see the announcement of the Afghan resettlement scheme, but that answers only today’s crisis. We want to see a resettlement programme that addresses not only the crisis of today, but the crises of tomorrow.

[The Chair]

We have a couple of minutes. Do any other witnesses want to say something briefly?

Lisa Doyle: May I just add to that? I agree that resettlement needs expansion. Refugee family reunion is a really good safe route; it is used by tens of thousands of people, 90% of whom are women and children. The Bill seeks to reduce the rights to refugee family reunion, rather than expand them. Priscilla also mentioned a humanitarian visa that would allow people to travel to the UK to claim asylum. They would still have their asylum claim looked at, but they could formally and legally get on a plane and come to the UK—you have to be physically present in the UK to claim asylum, so that would be helpful.

However, no matter how many safe routes are opened, you should not be closing down routes for people who need to enter irregularly. That is in the convention, as was just highlighted very strongly by the UNHCR. There will be categorisations and formal processes and criteria that people will have to meet for all of the safe routes, and not everyone will be covered yet. There will still be people who fall outside of those who have protection needs, and we should honour those.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Third sitting)

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

Q Thank you, Your Excellency, for being with us today. How were the offshore countries selected to be the base for processing, and what work was done with their Governments before opening those centres?

George Brandis: A lot of work was done with the Governments. I was not directly involved in that work, so I am not in a position to speak with particularity in answer to your question, sir, but they were countries in our region that were willing to enter into regional processing agreements with Australia.

[Neil Coyle]

Q And there were no asylum claims from either of those countries to Australia before they were selected as sites?

George Brandis: I am not aware that there were any from either New Guinea or Nauru. Those two countries were never a locus or genesis of the problem.

[The Chair]

Order. I am sorry, and I must apologise to colleagues who have not been called, but it is a time-limited session—that is what the Committee voted for—and I have to draw it to a close. Commissioner, the Committee is deeply indebted to you; thank you very much for coming in.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)

Nationality and Borders Bill

Neil Coyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will give way shortly, but I want to make progress first. The Opposition argue that it is wrong to deport murderers, rapists and dangerous criminals—[Interruption.] It is a fact. They think that border controls are wrong. They think that ending free movement is wrong. Well, Labour Members can sigh and shake their heads, but the fact of the matter is that over the last 12 months, when it has come to ending free movement and having discussions about reforming immigration and our points-based system, they seem to think that open borders are the answer. They obviously do not support our new plan for immigration. They do not like the people’s priorities when it comes to these issues, yet they have no plan.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

The public seem to want a fair, fast and affordable system, so can the Home Secretary tell the public how much more the taxpayer will pay for her new proposals?

[Priti Patel]

In fact, the taxpayer will be saving money in the long run. We already spend over £1 billion a year on dealing with the failed and broken asylum system. If the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill and the new plan for immigration, which I urge him to do, he will see that there are a range of measures—

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

No, I will not give way. I have taken many interventions.

We are also closing the loophole that has prevented the defence of some immigration decisions on the ground of national security.

I am resolute that we must fix a terrible injustice suffered by the Windrush generation and others who were denied British citizenship unfairly—

[Neil Coyle]

At the hands of the Conservative party.

[Priti Patel]

By successive Governments, if the hon. Gentleman had read the Wendy Williams report about Windrush. I have already overhauled the Windrush compensation scheme. I urge colleagues across the House to help us encourage people to come forward. What happened to them must never be repeated. That also means fixing our outdated nationality laws. The Bill gives the Home Secretary power to grant British citizenship to people who would have become British citizens if not for unfairness and exceptional circumstances beyond their control. For example, in one case, an individual was refused citizenship due to an absence from the UK on a given day, despite many years of previous residence. Of course it was not his fault.

The Bill provides further flexibility to waive residency requirements to help members of the Windrush generation and others acquire British citizenship more quickly. That will also mean that children unfairly denied British overseas territory citizenship can finally acquire citizenship here. That was one of the anomalies that came out in the Windrush scandal.

Our laws must be clearer and easier to understand. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” by Wendy Williams also said that immigration and nationality law is complex. The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to simplify and consolidate immigration law so that we can address many of the citizenship anomalies that have existed for too long—for decades, in fact.

The British people are generous and compassionate. As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda earlier, they give billions of pounds every year in overseas aid to provide support in countries around the world, to empower countries and communities and to invest in many economies. The British public also embrace those in genuine need and want people to succeed. They also want a system that is fair and firm—fair to the British people and to those in genuine need, but firm against the criminals and those who exploit our generosity by gaming the system.

The Bill is critical to delivering that new fair but firm system. It is also central to our new plan for immigration. It goes a long way to addressing decades of failure and challenges, in the law and illegal migration and in immigration courts and tribunals, in the way in which I have just reflected upon. The Windrush scandal has shone a spotlight on many of the anomalies that have existed when it comes to citizenship. We will change those areas, with secure borders and rules that will be easy to understand. That is part of the cumulative end-to-end change that we seek to introduce.

We want to slam the door on foreign criminals, put organised crime gangs out of business, and of course give help and support to those in genuine need. Everyone who plays by the rules will encounter a new system—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests because I have help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy—RAMP—project for my work in this area. RAMP is brilliant, in direct contrast to this Bill, which is the worst I have ever seen. This dog’s dinner would have been avoidable, however, if Ministers had listened to the evidence of experts, or even to the consultation responses, which they have promised, and failed, to publish. I hope that they will publish them as they finalise the Bill. It was strange after 11 years of a Conservative Administration to hear the Home Secretary admit, on the Second Reading of her own Bill, that it was not yet complete, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).

At a time of rising global crises, this Government could help to stop asylum seekers being created by intervening, perhaps under “global Britain”, but that has sadly proved to be an empty slogan, often mouthed by emptier heads. That given, we have a Government who have twice betrayed their own manifesto—and, of course, the people who voted for them—by cutting our aid and by cutting our armed forces personnel, which will mean shrinking our global reach and influence. This Government are also shrinking our international standing by seeking exclusivism in the form of a new special status for the UK outside international law, to the direct detriment of and cost to other countries, including our immediate neighbours. It is bonkers, but Ministers present this fiction to us. They have a real battle with reality ahead.

It is a fiction to pretend that we have deals with other countries to return anyone to them, except for Albania, a country that we accept asylum claims from. It is a fiction to claim that it is fair to criminalise someone fleeing communist torture and slave labour in Xinjiang, or that it is fair to criminalise RNLI volunteers or anyone on any boat who rescues asylum seekers from drowning. It is a fiction to claim that this Bill is fair on councils, who already pay for Home Office failures and delays, because they will face additional costs through the rough sleeping that these plans will create and the estimated additional £55 million of the new costs of these proposals, which will create 3,000 more people experiencing the pernicious Home Office “no recourse to public funds” restrictions. It is a fiction to pretend that this is fair to the taxpayers who will pick up the bill, whether it is through the Home Office, through councils’ emergency social services or through the new criminal justice and imprisonment costs, which are estimated to be more than £400 million a year.

The only truth I heard from the Home Secretary today is that the system is broken, with the number of people waiting over a year for a decision rising tenfold since 2010, with 33,000 in that position in 2010, including almost 7,000 children. What is maddening is that the number of people working for the Home Office has risen but productivity has collapsed, with around 2,500 people now having waited three years or more for a decision. It is a decade of Tory rule that has broken the Home Office. The party who used to claim to represent law and order has run the Department for law and order into the ground, with nine in 10 crimes now going unpunished in this country. But now, Ministers are asking the Home Office to act unlawfully in pursuing an aim that breaks international law. Sadly, the idea that the people who broke the Home Office now have ideas about how to fix it is also a fiction. I would ask Ministers to think again about these plans, but there is little evidence that they put much thought into the Bill in the first place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

How many EU settled status applications have been refused or rejected where the passport holder applicant is a citizen of an EU member state, due the applicant’s not having been born in that country?

[Priti Patel]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the specifics of his question; I do not have that detail in front of me right now. Throughout the application process, the Home Office has worked with and supported individuals who have issues demonstrating their status through some of the measures that I have already outlined, so that their status can be secured. There are ways in which we have been doing that, and I will write to him with that information.

Support for Asylum Seekers

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of asylum accommodation and the dispersal scheme in providing support for asylum seekers.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support that I have received, for research capacity in my office in relation to my work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, from RAMP, the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project, which I thank also for supporting the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and me in seeking this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Davies.

Let me start with some more thanks to all colleagues, across almost every party, who have backed the debate, and to all those organisations that not only have briefed for this debate, but work on this issue day in, day out, supporting some of the most vulnerable people across our country. I thank all my constituents who have messaged me to bemoan the awful system imposed by the Home Office, and all those out there who retain faith in the UK’s historic contribution to shaping international law on asylum and our equally historic contribution in not just settling asylum seekers in our country, but benefiting from the contribution that they have made to enrich our country’s economy and culture over very many decades.

Some people seek to cloak themselves in our flag, but wish to sidestep or even ignore our traditions and our historic sense of duty in always being there to support people in need—and people are in need in growing numbers across the globe, which is why an effective and efficient policy is so important. The world remains a dangerous place—from armed conflict, from growing resource and climate conflict and from growing aggression and human rights abuses in China, Russia and other countries, putting even more people at risk. Despite those growing risks, I am unsure whether there is another area where Tory rhetoric on global Britain clashes more harshly with the reality of this Government’s policies, given the planned cuts to our armed forces and the massive reduction to our international aid budget, despite manifesto commitments.

Many of the people in need will reach our shores, and when they arrive, we have responsibilities—legal duties. It is essential that we live up to our responsibilities—responsibilities to asylum seekers and responsibilities to the British public, who want to see an effective system that not only weeds out the tiny, minute, fraction of bogus claims fast but, equally quickly, resettles the overwhelming majority of genuine asylum seekers at the best price for the UK taxpayer. Sadly, that is in no way what we have currently. Instead, we have a fragmented system, badly mismanaged by the Home Office and, at the very start of the process, getting even the basics wrong. The British Red Cross has reported that 81% of asylum seekers do not even receive information in their own language. They are not told what is happening and will happen to them; and two thirds did not get health screening, even during the pandemic.

Then the Home Office shunts people into short-term asylum accommodation while their eligibility for support is assessed. Usually, people should then be moved to dispersal accommodation across the UK, where they will live until a decision is reached on their full application —often after a lengthy delay. During that period, people are prevented from working. They have no choice over where or how they are housed, and they are provided with just £39.63 a week to support themselves. That is a far cry from the £150,000 a year that the Prime Minister gets, and he is apparently still reliant on someone else to cover redecorating bills.

This is a crumbling, pernicious system, which has directly contributed to covid infections, crime and chaos, but it is overseen—ironically—by the Department with overall responsibility for tackling crime and disorder in the UK: a Department that has been warned so many times about this inhumane, inefficient and expensive system, which the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee have laid bare. The National Audit Office reported last July that the system that the Government have adopted caused costs to escalate by 28% to £568 for each accommodated asylum seeker, and saw a 96% increase in short-term, more expensive accommodation. In November last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a system in crisis and recommended:

“The Home Office should, within three months, set out a clear plan for how it will quickly and safely reduce the use of hotels and ensure that asylum seekers’ accommodation meets their individual needs.”

I look forward to hearing from the Minister today, six months later, how that is being delivered.

Understandably, the Minister will say that covid is responsible for some of the rising costs and inefficiencies of his Department’s policies. I hope he will outline when those costs will fall and the strategy adopted in response to repeat NAO and PAC concerns. I also hope he will acknowledge how Home Office policies go back to before covid. There were more than 1,000 people in hotels in October 2019, before covid was identified in China, let alone before it began to be responded to by a Government headed by a Prime Minister whose own delayed decisions contributed to covid deaths in the UK. I will not repeat his sickening comments about piling up the bodies, as they are so raw for the 127,000 families who have lost loved ones.

I think the level of interest in this debate is due in part to the dramatic rise in hotel and other inappropriate accommodation use. At the end of February, almost 8,700 people were living in hotels across the UK, according to the Refugee Council. It is important to remember that the increased number of people living in contingency accommodation is due not to a rise in applications, but to a Home Office backlog. Also, these are hotels where people might stay for a short stop en route, not for a holiday or extended break, as they are often on the edge of towns, far from amenities and certainly far from the healthcare services needed by people who have been through trauma elsewhere, and who in some cases have acute mental health needs.

In London, more than 6,000 asylum seekers are in hotels, and roughly 1,200 are children, some unaccompanied. Again, this is not a holiday; it is isolating, lonely, and also exposed. “Line of Duty” has made more people familiar with the term OCGs. As a direct result of Home Office policy, organised crime groups have targeted asylum seekers in Home Office-funded premises to engage them in illegal work and other crime, including drug trafficking. Vulnerable people are made worse off by the Home Office, with criminals benefiting from Home Office policy. The fact that the Department oversees law and order policy in the UK is a joke when it cannot even ensure that the premises it funds are off limits to OCGs.

The people in hotels were originally scheduled to be moved out by March 2021. In February, the Home Office announced its intention to move people out of hotels again, through Operation Oak, but the process has yet to be completed, and the Home Office has said that it simply intends to complete it by the summer. I hope the Minister will today confirm the new date, full plans and staging post for delivery. The fear is that this is still “Operation Acorn”.

Of course, some costs in the system are avoidable if the decisions are made quicker. The Home Office website still claims, ludicrously, that someone seeking asylum will “usually” have a decision within six months. That is simply untrue and has been for some time. More than 64,000 people are awaiting decisions, according to the Refugee Council, and the British Red Cross says that 72% have waited more than six months. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the average time today. I will be amazed if colleagues can stay in their seats both here in the room and at home, given the previous claims and the average delays that we see for our constituents.

I will give two examples from Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I have raised the cases of an Eritrean woman and a Mongolian man seeking asylum since 2017. Not only do they not have a decision four years later, but the Home Office cannot even give a timeframe for when their cases will be concluded. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today when and how the Home Office will cut the horrific backlog that his Government have created.

The vast majority of asylum seekers have their claims upheld—more than 90% for many countries—so the delay is a needless burden that affects the asylum seeker and also imposes massive cost penalties on the taxpayer: first, in expensive, avoidable temporary accommodation; secondly, because the Home Office prevents people from working; and thirdly, because of the avoidable and lengthy delays to decisions and eventual settlement and work.

At the end of September 2020, there were 3,621 Sudanese, Syrian and Eritrean nationals who had been waiting longer than six months for a decision on their application. The grant rate across those three countries at initial decision was 94% in the year ending March 2020. It could be faster, but it requires a focus from the Home Office that simply has not been there, and that I suspect we will not see from the Minister today.

The system was bad enough before covid, but covid has brutally exposed the inadequacies of the asylum process, with routine delays, inflated costs, needless waits, and prevention from work, even for the one in seven asylum claimants who have a professional background in health and social care. People that this country could have desperately done with working in our services to support people through the crisis were prevented from doing so by Government policy.

But no one could have been prepared for the horrors of the Napier barracks—a cross-party issue on which, I think, 45 questions have been asked since January from all parts of the House. The interest was because Napier exposed the worst excesses of this system, which fails people fleeing torture, genocide, war and persecution, but also fails the taxpayer, our historic contribution and the British tradition of not passing by on the other side of the street. The Napier barracks issue is likely to result in further costs to the taxpayer, with legal cases resulting from this inhumane system imposed on people fleeing to the UK for help, but forced to live in accommodation that public health bodies had said was unfit for use and likely to increase the risks of infection.

The Government claimed a few years ago that the Home Office was reviewing the hostile environment, but it was proved to be only too alive and kicking during the pandemic, perhaps inevitably under a Home Secretary who proved to be the most hostile of bosses. Will the Minister update us today on where that review is, or if it even still exists? Napier shows that, at the same time as wider Government was telling the public to stay home, isolate where possible and protect the NHS, this bit of the Government, the bit that solely determines where asylum seekers live, chose to accommodate people in dormitories of 28: communal, unhygienic spaces that contravened Government guidance and public health recommendations—a shameful episode.

The shadow Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), wrote to the Government in December calling for a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for accommodation. In a response at the end of the year, the Home Office claimed it was committed to upholding statutory duties, including providing safe covid-compliant accommodation to those who need it, but failed to undertake that review. Does the Minister have an answer or explanation for that failure today, or better still an apology to the people put in those horrific circumstances?

Sadly, instead of learning from this hideous mistake, which rightly caused public outrage, Ministers planned to extend the use of communal rooms, with proposals for cabin-style accommodation on former MOD land in Barton Stacey. The indications are that Ministers have learned nothing, but I hope we will hear today that Napier will be no longer used and other proposals will be dropped.

I asked for this debate not just to highlight the issue of short-term, costly and dangerous asylum accommodation, but to look at the wider problem that the Government have created surrounding long-term housing through the dispersal scheme, introduced under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was designed to try to ensure an even spread of support across the country. However, under that scheme, local authorities reach voluntary agreements with the Home Office to accept asylum seekers, and the Home Office has not negotiated well.

Many local authorities have no agreement with the Home Office at all. In Scotland, only Glasgow City Council accommodates asylum seekers. At the end of last year, 223 local authorities throughout the UK were taking no asylum seekers. The system is simply not working. I hope the Minister will explain how the Home Office is delivering the Home Affairs Committee recommendation that it should pursue the commitment he made to a more equitable and sustainable system by expanding the areas participating in dispersal.

Resources are, of course, part of the issue. Councils stress that after a decade of cuts to their budgets, there is no incentive to participate. The costs to local authorities supporting asylum seekers come from social care, homelessness services and other additional support needs. There appears to be no strategy or plan from the Home Office to address this issue to work with local authorities or better support asylum seekers moving out of contingency accommodation and into communities.

The ICIBI report in March stated that there was little focus on helping residents to prepare for next steps and next to zero focus on driving up the quality of the accommodation provided. Despite promises that improvements to accommodation be made, there is increased use of inappropriate emergency sites without wraparound support.

The 10-year contracts the Home Office is using are valued at £4 billion, but information about how these services are performing remains closely guarded. Perhaps Government secrecy is unsurprising when it comes to admitting failings or trying to improve services.

I hope the Minister will tell us his plans to address these issues today and when that plan might start. There is currently no sustainable plan. The only prospect is more of the terrible same, or worse, as numbers continue to rise and costs continue to escalate for emergency temporary accommodation for asylum seekers and costs to the taxpayers.

There are, of course, options on the table. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government might be better placed to provide some supported accommodation. Local authorities are often overlooked by this authoritarian, centralised Government. The need for a place-based, more equitable approach to dispersal has been consistently raised by the Local Government Association, which resulted in the Home Office and Local Government Chief Executive Group, co-chaired by the LGA, with representation of each region and devolved Administration, established in 2019 to develop a 10-year plan for a more equitable distribution of support. I hope the Minister will give us an update on that equitable distribution today.

Others suggest a local authority public health-driven approach. Incidents in hotels and barracks in recent months have highlighted the importance of advance notice, engagement and the sharing of data, so that local services are aware of who is in their locality and what their health needs are.

Sadly, as things stand, the Local Government Association states that the dispersal structure has been abandoned during covid. It is unclear how it will return or what is in place for when the pandemic ends. Partnership is needed on this issue. Will the Minister tell us how relations will be rebuilt? How will the Government address local authority concerns and deliver a more affordable system to the taxpayer, in partnership with the communities that will provide the ultimate long-term address for asylum seekers? At a minimum, I hope the Minister will today explain plans, if any exist, for how the Home Office will move away from its over-reliance on emergency accommodation and improve information sharing with councils and health bodies.

I end by quoting one of the amazing organisations that I thanked at the outset, the British Red Cross, whose report “Far from a home: why asylum accommodation needs reform” is out today. It is based on the real experiences of people living in asylum accommodation, including barracks and finds that

“too many asylum-seeking women, men and children in the UK are living in unsafe, unsanitary and isolated accommodation. This falls far short of expected standards, for months and even years at a time. These issues have been compounded by mounting backlogs in asylum application decisions in recent years, the failure to secure enough community dispersal accommodation and more recently, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Worryingly, the report also suggests that:

“Far from addressing these issues, the UK Government’s New Plan for Immigration…includes plans to house people seeking asylum in reception centres.”

It goes on:

“As we have witnessed in the use of military barracks, institutional-style accommodation can have significant negative impacts on people’s mental and physical health, as well as isolating people seeking asylum from wider communities, ultimately reducing social integration and cohesion…We believe this would be a mistake.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the report’s findings. I hope the Minister will give an initial response to the report in his comments, reassure us that the Home Office will no longer run a dangerous policy that puts people at risk of ill health and exposed to organised crime, and explain how he will seek to restore our proud tradition of being there at times of need.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I am going to have to impose a time limit, beginning at four minutes and rapidly dropping to three minutes for people further down the list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I thank everyone for contributing to the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. What we are seeing is a poverty of ambition from this Government, with aid cuts and Army cuts that reduce our ability to intervene abroad to prevent the creation of asylum seekers in the first place. There is no ambition to end the backlog and delays in decision making for those who are already here, no ambition to end hotel use, leaving taxpayers footing the bill for inappropriate accommodation, and no ambition to work better with councils. Southwark and the Salvation Army offered to take more unaccompanied children, but the Home Office failed to take them up on that.

We see a reliance on a new plan that says we cannot do better than barrack accommodation, when Napier should be seen as a hideous aberration and a break with British tradition, for all the reasons exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). That new plan relies on a bilateral arrangement with the European Union that Germany and France have already said no thanks to. The Minister should be resolutely focused on delivering the humane, efficient system that the public want and that people fleeing war desperately need, and should be fixing the existing problems in the system before creating new ones through a new plan that is a mess before it has even begun.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of asylum accommodation and the dispersal scheme in providing support for asylum seekers.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 General Committees

[Kevin Foster]

I thank members of the Committee for the debate we have had and for the observations they have made.

I will start with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire and then move on to the shadow Front Benchers. To be clear, we have said that we will publish a non-exhaustive list of examples. In each instance, a decision-maker should be able to use discretion if it is fair in the circumstances to do so. I have given examples, such as those who were under 18 on deadline day and their parent or local council, who had a duty to apply for them, did not. As I reassured my hon. Friend, when they hit the age of majority, which could be in 10, 13 or perhaps even 14 or 15 years’ time, and realise that there was no application, we would see it as reasonable for them to have assumed that their parent or guardian had done it.

Again, other circumstances include ill health or mental incapacity to make an application. I reassure Members that we will look at situations where someone has clearly received faulty or negligent legal advice in relation to their status. Generally, we will ensure that decision-makers are able to look at the circumstances and see whether there are reasonable grounds, rather than having a list and saying, “If you don’t meet that list, you can’t apply.”

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

If that extra discretion, and the complexity and anomalies that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax mentioned, were being added to a functioning, gold-plated, brilliant system, Members might be assured, but it is being added to a dysfunctional Home Office that is failing many of our constituents week in, week out through delays and erroneous decisions that leave people destitute.

[Kevin Foster]

I am sorry to hear that description of the EUSS that has already had 4.26 million applications. I give the hon. Gentleman a tip that it is about to hit another milestone in numbers of applications. We think that it is working fairly well. For most people, making an application is a 15-minute job at home, using a smartphone.

We want to take the lessons from how the EUSS has worked into the wider immigration system. Hon. Members may not have picked this up, but in the skilled worker route, an EEA national can use their smart phone from home to apply rather than making a trip to a visa application centre. Building on the experience of the EUSS, we have been able to provide secure identity checks from home. For obvious reasons, I will not go into all the details of what we do to verify identity, but this has been a real success and I am sorry to hear that description of it.

To reassure my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire, we will have a range of circumstances listed along non-exhaustive lines. The longer the delay, the more there is a chance that someone knows that they do not have entitlement under the withdrawal agreement, but is claiming that they do. We want decision-makers to have flexibility and to treat this as faces, not cases. There will be a list, but it is not exhaustive.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East always makes well thought-through contributions, even though we have fundamental policy disagreements on this and a range of other issues. I will provide a detailed written response to him and the Committee, but I shall deal with a couple of points now. He mentioned two EEA nationals. Let us assume that they are in England, because as he will know the right to rent checks do not apply outside England. If they were renting before 30 June a landlord is perfectly entitled to accept an EEA passport or national identity card as proof that they meet the compliant environment checks. If anyone has concerns, they can regularise and make their application via the EUSS straight after. We will not be asking landlords to make retrospective checks if they have accepted an EEA passport or identity card, just as we would not expect employers on 1 July suddenly to check that every member of their staff has EUSS status. Up until that point, landlords and employers cannot insist on it, provided that someone has presented an appropriate document. They can, of course, use it and we are finding that it is very popular. Between April and June there were 400,000 checks under the new improved service, 100,000 of which were to look at EUSS status. Those who have it are already finding it a handy and convenient way of meeting the checks.

Asylum Seekers and Permission to Work

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered asylum seekers and permission to work.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support I received for research capacity in my office in relation to work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. The Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project provides research capacity to me and other Members of Parliament on this issue, and it does a fantastic job generally.

While I am thanking RAMP, I want to thank everyone involved in the Lift the Ban campaign: Refugee Action, Asylum Matters, the Refugee Council, City of Sanctuary UK, Ben & Jerry’s, UNISON, which is the country’s biggest trade union, the Salvation Army, and Church of England and other faith groups. I would also like to thank other RAMP principals, including the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for attending this debate. I know he wants to contribute, and that is very welcome. There is no politics involved in getting this right, in my opinion.

Who does this issue affect? An asylum seeker is someone who has applied for asylum, is legally entitled to be in the country and is awaiting a decision on whether they will be granted refugee status. After a claim is made in the UK, an asylum seeker is granted the right to work after 12 months in a limited pool of occupations. That is important, because the shortage occupation list, which is administered by the Government, is a system more akin to a Stalinist economic plan in the Soviet Union than global Britain in the 21st century.

I will give a bit of the history—come with me in my Tardis. In December 2018, the Home Secretary stated that a Home Office review of the policy on asylum seekers and work would be taking place. Since then, any questions that have been posed or letters that have been written to Ministers have all been met with the response that work is ongoing. In all that time, we still do not have a full idea of the remit, the process that is being followed or when it will report.

On 25 July 2019, in a debate about priorities for Government, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green):

“The Home Office is currently reviewing that matter, and we will make an announcement shortly.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1493.]

Shortly? Priorities for Government? That was on 25 July last year. We know that a week is a long time in politics, but 64 weeks after the Prime Minister told us that it was his priority to deliver the review and he would make an announcement shortly, we still have no news.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely astonishing that the Government are taking so long to look into something that would have an economic benefit for the country? Estimates tell us that up to £42 million could be contributed to the economy by people who are currently left without any dignity and living on a pittance, when they have skills that they could bring to our country.

[Neil Coyle]

That is beyond astonishing. I am baffled and bewildered as to why it is taking so long. I do not shy away from acknowledging the fact that migrants of all kinds have always made a strong economic contribution, and they have strengthened our community and our society for the better. They should be better treated by our Government, who have delayed on this for far too long.

On 11 June this year, in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, the Minister announced that a new service standard for asylum claims was being developed. He said that it was

“intended to try to bring back some balance to the system…UK Visas and Immigration is engaging with stakeholders as part of these plans and considering any insight that those stakeholders offer as it tries to shape a new service standard”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 11 June 2020; c. 124.]

I hope the Minister who is here today will tell us what that will look like, who has been involved and when it will report. I hope that he will also tell us when what the Prime Minister promised in July 2019 will finally be delivered. I assume that those things will be together, but let us see what the Minister says.

On the numbers of people affected, the Refugee Council reported at the end of June this year that 38,756 people have been waiting for more than six months for a decision. That is a massive increase on the figure for this time last year. It is a record-breaking rise, and a record-breaking failure in the Home Office. From the end of June this year, almost 17,000 applications have been waiting for more than 12 months for an initial decision. That is astonishing, and it is pathetic. Any business with such a level of delivery would be shut down. It is a complete failure and a dereliction of duty in the Home Office. We should not forget that an application does not just represent one person; there can be a whole family on one application.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is driven by compassion for genuine asylum seekers, but does he not agree that what he proposes would feed into the business plan of the traffickers who bring economic migrants to our shores, causing the misery that we have seen both at sea and in the backs of lorries?

[Neil Coyle]

It is completely the opposite, I am afraid. Asylum seekers could make, and want to make, an economic contribution to this country, and that is to be welcomed. People are forced to use illegal measures to get into the country because of the delays and our terrible system. If we were more compassionate and stuck with the UK tradition of helping people, rather than turning a blind eye or crossing the road, we would be in a better position morally and economically.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I, too, need to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a RAMP principal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of safe and legal routes—we very much welcome the Government’s commitment to doing that—by which people can establish their claims is key to the United Kingdom’s ability to disrupt traffickers and those who bring people into the country in very high-risk ways, which are a matter of legitimate public concern?

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the introduction in 2002 of the ban on asylum seekers working reflected a prevailing concern, in the then Labour Government and in Parliament more widely, about the economic impact? At the time, the United Kingdom was preparing for the accession of further countries into the European Union. However, according to the research that RAMP has shared with us both, 67% of businesses believe that now is the time to lift the ban. Does he agree that we need to recognise that times have changed, and that safe and legal routes and the changing economic climate make a case for doing so that simply did not exist when the Labour Government introduced the ban in 2002?

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and I completely agree that times have changed. These people, however, are often professionals; they have skillsets that we should be seeking to use to benefit our economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I was speaking to the hon. Gentleman outside about the fact that of six Syrian families that came to Newtownards, all of the menfolk were skilled carpenters and wanted to work. One of the things that held them back was language. Does he feel it is important that we encourage those people who have skills whenever there is a market for them at the same time, as there certainly was in my constituency?

[Neil Coyle]

I agree, the Government should prioritise English language training to overcome the language barrier. We have seen a drop in the availability of English language teaching and training, and that needs to come back.

The point about it being time to change is really important, because Lift the Ban’s research showed that one in seven of the people seeking asylum have experience of working in health and social care. We have a shortfall in those sectors, and in any normal year we should be welcoming people and getting them into those jobs as quickly as possible. In the context of a global pandemic, there is simply no excuse for denying this workforce a chance to get on with those jobs, which we need more than ever. I hope today the Minister will talk us through how he will be fast-tracking those with health and social care backgrounds, in particular, into jobs.

We need more nurses and medical practitioners, and people with that skilled background are going through an inhumane process—state-sponsored destitution on £5.66 a day or £39.62 a week. I hope that the Minister will listen to campaigners and tell us when that rate will be increased, and why it has not yet been increased to help people protect themselves, their families and the broader community in response to covid-19.

There is evidence that this policy has left people vulnerable to exploitation and criminals. Even in Home Office-run hostels, gangs target these people because they know they are desperate for cash and income. This is a Home Office policy—the Department responsible for law and order and tackling crime has a policy that results in an increase in crime.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I will be brief. Britain, our country, has a proud history of supporting people fleeing war and persecution, and the use of language is very important. It is important to remember that asylum seekers are people; they are fellow human beings and they need to be treated with respect, dignity and fair process. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason so many hon. Members on Opposition Benches are alarmed by inaction by this Government is that this Government and the Home Office were the architects of the hostile environment that led to so much damage to the fabric of society?

[Neil Coyle]

I think that there is cross-party support for this, and I will come back to the subject of the broader public.

Before I leave the subject of occupations, the Government’s list of approved proficiencies includes classical ballet dancer or skilled orchestral musician—so those are okay, but for other professions, where we desperately need people, people are being delayed in getting into those jobs. I hope the Minister will commit to overhaul the shortage occupation list system; he will have public support for that. British Future found that 71% of the British public supports the right to work after six months—public opinion will be on the Government’s side should they introduce the policy.

I want to talk about the situation in Southwark. We have 189 dispersed asylum seekers housed across the borough, and the council has a commitment in its refreshed plan to making Southwark a borough of sanctuary, working with community groups and partners to help and support refugee and migrant asylum seekers in the borough, and campaigning to end the hostile environment, which the Government told us they wanted to end. They told us they were dismantling the hostile environment, and yet here it is alive and kicking and damaging people’s lives, leaving people destitute.

I want to celebrate the work of the Southwark day centre for asylum seekers, which does a tremendous job and has very strong links to this House; the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) are both patrons of it. People from the centre tell me that the majority of the people they see do not have the right to work and are dependent on charities and faith groups. Churches and mosques are picking up the slack because we have an irresponsible Government leaving people without support. Some of the people they are supporting are not even covered by the asylum support scheme and live beyond destitution. They have confirmed that 40% of the asylum seekers they are helping wait longer than 12 months for a decision—40% of the people they see. I see these people in my casework and surgery sessions—not face-to-face at the moment, although I do make exceptions, so if anyone does need to see me, we can do in a covid-secure way in my constituency office.

[David Simmonds]

I promise to be super brief. I was reading a quote about how cash benefits have been regarded as

“a major pull factor that encourages fraudulent claims”—[Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 16.]

from asylum seekers. That was from Jack Straw, when he was overseeing this policy as Home Secretary. Does the hon. Member agree that one strength of recognising that times have changed and introducing the right to work is that it would prove to our constituents that asylum seekers are not scroungers, but people with skills valued by British businesses who are here to make a tax-paying contribution, rather than expecting to subsist off the taxpayer?

[Neil Coyle]

I agree 100% and that echoes the point made earlier that these are people who want to contribute, to make a difference and to improve our country as well as their own lives. I have two quick examples from constituency casework. One woman who applied for asylum in 2014, was initially refused, and reapplied in 2017 has still had no response and no decision. She fled Eritrea due to political repression and has physical injuries as a result of the beatings that she took there. Her current application has taken more than three years and remains undecided. The second is a man with post-traumatic stress disorder from his experience in Iran, where he was born, who received a refusal in 2019, after waiting more than a year initially. He submitted a fresh application, including more medical information, has still not received a response and is left destitute. This is an issue—the longer people wait and are out of work, the harder it is for them to contribute when permitted by the Government. Of course, there are also mental health issues and other implications for those left marginalised and isolated on the periphery of society. These are people who could be contributing, as other Members have mentioned.

It is estimated that the current policy costs the taxpayer almost £100 million a year—for an awful, inhumane and incompetent approach. The CBI and TUC back the Lift the Ban campaign. It would generate income and reduce bureaucracy, help raise additional income tax and national insurance, and cut emergency accommodation and other costs. Of course, there are stronger and long-term savings as people integrate and contribute more. Compared globally, we perform badly. Before people can work in France, Spain and the USA it is six months, in Germany it is three months, and in Italy two months. In Canada and Australia—Ministers often hold up the Australian immigration system—there is no wait. People can get into work as soon as they arrive. Why are we not using the Australian model? Why is the Minister still sustaining the damage of this policy to our economy and those people’s lives?

In conclusion, what the campaign asks for is a change and for the ban to be lifted to ensure a more humane approach that tackles this long-term isolation and marginalisation; one befitting the UK’s proud history of support and allowing people who face persecution and repression abroad to enter; and one that is in our economic interests, helping us to tackle covid so that people can protect themselves, the NHS and the wider community. Without that change the Home Office, the Department responsible for safety in this country, leaves those people and our whole community unsafe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister look at those who have health and social care backgrounds and fast-track them on the SOL, so that they can work sooner and while our services so desperately need them?

[Chris Philp]

We conducted a review of that back at the beginning of the pandemic, and the numbers that I was given were very, very small, but I will say that the professions that are on the shortage occupation list and can be applied for include medical practitioners, psychologists, nurses, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists—and even actuaries and architects. Paramedics are on there as well. There are quite a lot of medical professions on the shortage occupation list already. A review is ongoing. It will report as soon as we are able to complete it, and I will of course report back to the House when that happens, but in the meantime I completely take the point about speeding up and making sure that we make these decisions quickly, for all the reasons that we have discussed this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Citizens' Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 General Committees

[Kevin Foster]

The simple answer is yes. As my hon. Friend says, our main focus is on ensuring that people register before the deadline. We recently confirmed grant funding for 72 organisations, which will receive support to assist vulnerable people who need extra help to apply. We will, as I have said before, take a generous approach to what reasonable grounds are, and we will publish illustrative, not exhaustive, guidance. We are keen to take into consideration whether the individual circumstances in which a late application is made are reasonable.

I regularly cite the relevant example of a child in the care of a local authority that has the duty to make the application on their behalf. If the local authority fails to do that, and the person becomes an adult and realises that the application was not made for them, that would be seen as an eminently reasonable ground, because they were entitled to believe that the local authority would have done its duty and made the application on their behalf.

Moreover, there is no set time period for reasonable grounds. For example, in the case of a looked-after child, the Home Office accepts that it could be some time before they run into the problem. For the sake of argument, an eight-year-old child will become an adult in 10 years’ time and might discover when they go for their first job that the local council had not made the application 10 years ago. That would still be seen as a reasonable ground for a late application, because the child would not have known about it.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I commend the campaign by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire. The Government have provided some £17 million to grant-based organisations to identify those who are more vulnerable and to reach those affected. How many people have been reached so far? And how many others who need this safeguard and protection do the Government think have not been reached?

[Kevin Foster]

It is impossible to give an exact number because we will have free movement until 31 December. People can arrive in the United Kingdom tomorrow and gain free movement rights and eligibility to apply to the European settlement scheme. We have been monitoring performance with the grant-funding organisations. Performance has been strong. I visited one in Southwark recently. I was pleased to see the work it was doing with the Spanish-speaking community in Southwark.

Overall, the scheme has had just over 4 million applications. In the early part of next month we will publish the next set of numbers up to the end of September, which will break it down in more detail. The grant-funding organisations have been doing quality work. We are loth to go purely on numbers because some of them work with people with incredibly chaotic lifestyles. For example, one in Scotland works with the homeless. Doing it purely by numbers would not necessarily reflect the quality of the work they have done in supporting the vulnerable and ensuring that they have an EU settlement scheme application.

As has been touched on, we will have an illustrative list of reasonable grounds as to why an application might be made late. We will judge each individual case. In some cases, there will not be a time limit. We are keen that each circumstance will be looked at to see whether there is a reasonable ground. My example of the child in care will probably be among those cases with the longest periods, because it would be reasonable for them not to have realised that the council had not made the application on their behalf. If they are eight years old today, it could be 10 years before they engage in the issue as an adult and they may need to present certain things under the compliance environment.

Finally, I have sent around a letter—I apologise to Opposition Members for it coming not long before the Committee—following a constructive conversation yesterday with a number of Members of both Houses of Parliament about the impact of some provisions on those who are here but not exercising a free movement right. We have extended to them the ability to apply to the EUSS by making the criteria under our domestic law residence and not exercising a free movement right regulation. We think it is right to be generous because some of these people have been in the UK for many decades, so that is the right thing to do rather than asking people to prove exactly which free movement right they are exercising. We had queries and have issued a letter setting out the Government’s position on the grace period, pending them applying to the European settlement scheme.

I turn to the draft Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which protect the rights of EEA citizens who have begun frontier working in the United Kingdom by 31 December 2020 and wish to continue to do so. A frontier worker is a person resident outside the UK who comes to the UK for work. They continue to have the right to come here to work once freedom of movement has ended, for as long as they continue to be a frontier worker.

The regulations establish a frontier worker permit scheme to allow protected frontier workers to apply for a permit confirming their rights. Applications for frontier worker permits will be made online and will be simple, streamlined and, like other routes, free of charge. From 1 July 2021—the end of the grace period—frontier workers will be required to hold a valid frontier worker permit as evidence of their right to enter the UK on that basis.

The regulations set out the circumstances in which a protected frontier worker’s rights can be restricted and a permit can be refused or revoked, in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. They also provide protected frontier workers with statutory rights of appeal against decisions that restrict their rights, as well as a right of administrative review against certain decisions concerning eligibility. For the benefit of those Committee members who are wondering, I can confirm that Irish nationals who are in effect frontier working across the Irish border do not need to go through the process, given the status of Irish nationals under UK immigration law and their ability to live and work in the UK. The vast majority of frontier workers across the border in Ireland are Irish citizens, and that is the status they need to have. They would not be required to apply to that process.

I turn to the draft Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The regulations give effect to the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreements that require the UK to consider conduct committed before the end of the transition period in accordance with the current EU thresholds when restricting the rights to enter and reside of a person protected by those agreements. These protections extend to people protected by the UK’s domestic implementation of those agreements.

Now that we have left the EU, it is right and important that parity is created for all foreign nationals in the United Kingdom. Currently, the test for whether a third-country national is liable to deportation is stricter and more specific than that for EEA citizens, which means it is easier to deport third-country nationals who have committed criminal offences. Similar distinctions exist for other types of restriction decisions—for example, a person’s exclusion from the United Kingdom.

We are required by the agreements to apply the EU thresholds of public policy, public security and public health, as set out in the EEA regulations, when assessing conduct committed before the end of the transition period, for the purpose of restricting a person’s right to enter or reside in the UK. The thresholds will apply to those protected by the agreements or the UK’s domestic implementation of those agreements, including those with status under the EU settlement scheme; those with an EU settlement scheme family permit; those who have a right to enter the UK for the purposes of a continuing course of healthcare; those who have entered the UK as a Swiss service provider; and those who are frontier workers. Conduct committed after the end of the transition period will be assessed according to the same criminality thresholds that apply to non-EEA nationals today, consistent with the agreements and creating a fair immigration system for all.

The Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill contains provisions to revoke the EEA regulations at the end of the transition period, after which these regulations will come into force. To comply with our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, we need to save and modify relevant provisions in the EEA regulations in so far as they apply to deportation decisions. That will allow us to apply the current EU law thresholds to conduct committed before the end of the transition period. The regulations also provide that deportation decisions made in accordance with these protections continue to be appealable in accordance with the UK’s obligations. I can confirm that that will be when the conduct was committed, not when the conviction is received. To clarify, when the matter that is the subject of the conviction occurred will determine whether this applies.

To conclude, these three draft instruments implement the Government’s citizens’ rights commitments under the withdrawal agreement. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Coyle Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

What steps her Department is taking to ensure that community services working with victims of domestic violence have adequate resources to deal with an increase in demand as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to help protect victims of domestic abuse.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Domestic abuse devastates lives. During this time of covid that we have all experienced, victims are particularly vulnerable, and as we know, home has not been a safe place for everyone to access the usual support that they could receive. That is why, through our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, we are committed to protecting victims in a stronger way.

[Neil Coyle [V]]

As things stand, the Government are discriminating against people who have “no recourse to public funds” restrictions imposed on them and their British-born children, who are denied access to support. Will the Home Secretary end that discrimination by amending the Domestic Abuse Bill to ensure that help is provided to everyone affected by domestic violence and scrap this fundamentally racist policy?

[Priti Patel]

The Domestic Abuse Bill has, I think it is fair to say, been discussed extensively in the House, and I want to thank everybody who has made outstanding contributions to it, including the many organisations that participated in advance of the Bill coming to the House. We are offering support to migrants who suffer domestic abuse through our destitution domestic violence concession scheme. I would like to emphasise—and the hon. Gentleman will know this from his work as a Member of Parliament and with local authorities—that support is provided by local authorities, and individuals can access safe accommodation and get support through various means, which is incredibly important.