Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (First sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome, everyone. I want our two witnesses to enjoy the session. I do not know whether you have appeared before parliamentarians before, but you are not on trial. You both look innocent as far as I am concerned. It is really just a question of Committee members getting information from your good selves, which will help them when they deliberate the Bill.

We will now hear evidence from Professor Bernard Ryan, of the University of Leicester, and Professor Alan Manning, who chairs the Migration Advisory Committee. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed—I hope that colleagues have the timings in front of them. They are either half an hour or an hour.

The scope of the Bill is quite narrow. It is not a wide-ranging immigration Bill. It would end free movement of European economic area and Swiss nationals in the United Kingdom, and questions should be focused on the effects of that, rather than on wider immigration matters. I ask that witnesses also try to keep their comments focused on the scope of the Bill. We have until half-past 10 for this witness panel.

Do any members of the Committee wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In relation to this afternoon’s sitting, I am a founding trustee of Focus on Labour Exploitation, but I cannot be here for that part of the sitting anyway.

[The Chair]

Q It is very good of you to make us aware of that. I assume that there are no further interests to declare. Would the panel members please introduced themselves?

Professor Ryan: I am Bernard Ryan. I am professor of migration law at the University of Leicester.

Professor Manning: I am Alan Manning, current chair of the MAC and professor of economics at the London School of Economics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

Q Professor Manning?

Professor Manning: The Bill does not have any details on exactly what the future system will be. The White Paper talks about a consultation as well, and there is still quite a lot of detail to be filled in. There is still considerable uncertainty about exactly what that future system would be.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q I wonder whether I can go back to your earlier points about the historic nature of the Bill, Professor Ryan. You commented that citizens of Commonwealth origin still draw their rights from the 1971 Act. Do you think that the Bill adequately defines the rights that those acquiring settled status will have?

Professor Ryan: It does not, because it does not really attempt to do that. In a sense, that is the gap that I am identifying. In relation to EU rights, the Bill provides for switching off, but it does not provide anything about prior residents or people who are already exercising rights. There is nothing said about that in the Bill. We do not know the exact intentions on how transition arrangements would be operated, for example, under the powers in the Bill. Nothing has been said so far to indicate that the Bill is going to provide protection to anyone who is here already.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q Do you not find it extraordinary that such a historic measure, which affects so many people in this country, does not have that provision?

Professor Ryan: Yes, indeed. That is why I started with that observation—to try to ask for the Bill to be seen in those terms. Understandably, because of the politics around leaving the European Union, everyone is concerned with the moment, as it were, but I urge the Government to take a longer view of what the Bill really means and think about other things that could go in the Bill because of the long life that it may have.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Q Professor Manning, on behalf of the Migration Advisory Committee, in relation to EEA nationals working in this country, you were careful to say just now that the root cause of low wages in the care sector is not immigration, but rather the funding of the system. In relation to other sectors, you seem to be saying that you believe that constraint in the labour market could have a positive effect on wages. Could you just say a little bit more about what you think the channel to that is? Is it excess profits in manufacturing that management will decide to divert to wages? Is it efficiencies that the manufacturing industry has not invested in, and now will? What do you think the channel will be? It is one thing to say that immigration has been neutral to negative—your words—but another to say that constraint in the immigration system affecting the labour market will push up wages. This is not simple supply and demand, is it?

Professor Manning: It is not just simple supply and demand, but supply and demand is relevant. It is important not to exaggerate the role that immigration plays in everything that is happening in the labour market as a whole. We have a very tight labour market at the moment, and demand for labour is running ahead of supply in many sectors. There are complaints about shortages and vacancies in a lot of places. Solving that through immigration, it is said, means increasing the supply of labour to bring demand and supply into line, but in our view that will not work because when immigrants come, they increase supply. They earn money, spend money, and add to labour demand more or less in balance. That is why the overall effect is neutral.

We think the way in which you should respond to imbalance in the labour market is through raising wages. Where do those rising wages come from? Partly, employers are put under pressure to use labour more efficiently when labour is scarce, so that is part of the efficiencies that you talked about. There might be some sectors that have been quite profitable in recent years, so there is some scope to squeeze profits, although there are many sectors where margins are tight. If you talk to employers, they would say they really have not got that much choice.

It is also the case that workers will vote with their feet and go to work for employers that they think offer them the best deal. In that process, there are good employers and bad employers. When labour markets are tight, good employers do well and bad employers find it harder. That is a natural process by which we have rising living standards in the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

Q The question that I was going to ask about appeal rights has been largely covered, but may I ask whether you feel that it is rather exceptional within our immigration system to deny any appeal rights to a category of people who seek status within the UK?

Chai Patel: Unfortunately not. It is important that we also say that appeal rights should be reinstated across all immigration matters. The removal of appeal rights has caused significant problems, which we are seeing in our work—particularly because at the moment, unfortunately, the Home Office is not capable of making decisions correctly. Where people are allowed appeal rights, the success rates on appeal are remarkable: around 50%, or even higher in some categories of case. That should be fixed, and one of the ways to fix it is to have oversight. If caseworkers know that people will be given a right to appeal and legal aid to pursue that right, they will be incentivised to make good decisions in the first place.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q How confident are you that the option offered by the Home Office of administrative review, and ultimately judicial review, provides any real opportunities for challenge within the system?

Chai Patel: The chief inspector’s reports on administrative review have raised some concerns. Simply as a matter of practical reality, administrative review is the

Home Office marking its own work. If it is not getting decisions right the first time, it is not getting decisions right the second time. The point is that people are trying to get through decisions. The Home Office is understaffed. The people making the decisions are undertrained and struggling to get through huge backlogs and delays.

I am not an expert on the internal workings of the Home Office, but in the decisions that it makes you see that frequently people have not read the papers, or have copied and pasted reasons across decisions. Very minor inconsistencies are picked up in order to make rejections. Those things cannot always be corrected by judicial review, because judicial review is a very restrictive form of court oversight. The court cannot remake the decision that the caseworkers made; it can look only at whether it was egregiously irrational or unlawful.

An appeal to the tribunal allows an independent person to look at the case as a whole and to decide what is fair. That corrective mechanism is a key part of ensuring that the Home Office improves its own systems, because there is an external oversight mechanism.

[The Chair]

Very brief questions and brief answers.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Tracey Crouch]

Q That would be enormously helpful. I have a very quick question for Universities UK. The Home Secretary said explicitly on Second Reading that there would be no cap on student numbers. Did that provide you with the reassurance you were looking for in terms of students?

Vivienne Stern: Up to a point. Ministers have been saying for many years that there is no cap on the number of students who can come to the UK under a tier 4 visa. That is not actually the problem. The things that have been standing in our way are features of the visa system that, frankly, make us uncompetitive compared with some of the other major destinations that international students choose to study in. A visa system that, for example, restricts the opportunity for international graduates to stay and work in the UK for a little bit post-graduation is, frankly, not that appealing when you compare it with the opportunities offered by Australia, Canada and the US.

There are other things the Government could do to make the system more welcoming. There have been some really quite positive signals in what Ministers have said recently about a willingness to look at the compliance system. We hear from prospective international students that they are put off by a feeling that the immigration system treats them with suspicion from the start, so we should look at things like credibility interviews and how they operate, decision making by entry clearance officers, and some of the compliance requirements on institutions, which require them to interact with international students in a way that can be rather off-putting.

All those things should be looked at, if for no other reason than that there are huge opportunities for the UK as one of the most popular destinations for international students. We are in a hugely privileged position, and at this particular moment in our national history we have the opportunity to open our doors to people at a very early stage in the development of their professional lives, to establish strong bonds and, in many cases, to leave a lasting legacy of affection for the UK. We could do with more of that, not less.

Education is also a hugely important source of export earnings for the UK. Although international students have value far beyond their financial or economic value to the UK, it is not trivial that this is an increasingly important export sector. The Government’s figures point to quite significant growth in our export earnings from education, which are now around £19 billion a year. We should be pursuing that opportunity, rather than tripping over our own feet. The new international education strategy announced in January is a great opportunity for the Government to get their policy aligned with their international ambitions. The visa system has to be part of that. There are some modest steps in the right direction, including in the White Paper, but we really think the Government should go a bit further than that.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q On that theme, I think I am right in saying there are around 450,000 international students in the UK. What proportion of those are from the EU?

Vivienne Stern: There are 442,000 students from all around the world, and just less than a third of those are from the EU. As a proportion of our total student population, that is around 6%. It is a source of significant concern that that enormous pool of talent will find it a bit more difficult to come to the UK after our departure from the European Union.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q Vice-chancellors I have talked to across the sector suggest that universities might be planning to lose up to 80% of EU students. Is that a figure that strikes a chord with you?

Vivienne Stern: It is hard to predict. We can see a certain pattern in the response by EU students to previous changes in the UK. For example, with the increase in the fee from £3,000 to just over £9,000, you saw the numbers of EU students decline, and they took quite a while to bounce back. That indicates that there is a certain price sensitivity among EU students. They also have a huge amount of choice in relatively close geographic terms in Europe—other high-quality destinations that they could choose over the UK if we seem to make it difficult for them to come.

My long-term prediction, which is not shared by all our university vice-chancellor members, is that because the UK remains a first or second-choice destination for students who are globally mobile in many countries around the world, over time, we will work back to a position where we are still a very attractive destination for EU students. My real concern is what happens in the short to medium term, where we go from being very attractive, and it is very easy to come to the UK, to putting in place higher barriers in the form of a new visa regime. We could see a significant decrease as a result of that, at least in the short to medium term.

The fundamentals are strong, however. We have a high-quality system, and we offer something that is valuable in the long term. That is what we have to work to communicate to international audiences.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q May I return to the question of academic staff? I asked vice-chancellors in Sheffield how many early career academics could not be here if they were subject to the non-EEA immigration rules. They said that something like 600 would have no right to be in the country under that regime. Does that reflect the picture across the country?

Vivienne Stern: To take one group as an example, if you look at staff who are on research-only contracts, 27% are from the European Union. About 8% of them earn less than £30,000. It is not a huge proportion—those are probably people who are very early in their research careers—but it would none the less be a loss to the UK, if you imagine that those people might otherwise have stayed and made their careers with us. Although numerically it may not seem a significant proportion compared with technicians where the proportion is 63%, it should still be a matter of concern.

The other thing, which is perhaps not a matter for this Committee, is that we do well in competitive grant competitions—for example, in competitions for European Research Council funds. I think more than half those awardees are not actually from the UK, but are European nationals who have decided either to bring their grant to the UK or apply from the UK for that grant. If we lost those individuals—if they decided to apply for those same grants from a German or French institution—it would diminish our research base. So it is not necessarily just a matter of the numbers of individuals who might not be able to get visas. There is a knock-on effect that is quite difficult to predict.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Q There has been a great deal of comment about the inclusion of students in the net migration statistics. Does Universities UK have any evidence to illustrate the impact of overseas students on healthcare provision, public transport and that kind of thing?

Vivienne Stern: We have done a bit of analysis as Universities UK on the economic impact of international students. The headline figure is that those students contribute about £29 billion to the UK economy through various mechanisms and create 200,000 jobs—I will write to the Committee with the figures, because I am concerned that I will misquote them.

They have a significant effect not only directly on institutions but on the many parts of the UK economy that they touch, such as taxi drivers, corner shops, bars and restaurants. The university sector is distributed right across the UK. There is almost no part of the UK that does not have a university in some geographical proximity. If you think of it as an industry, it is not one that is concentrated in London and the south-east.

I was in Paisley recently and I went to visit the University of the West of Scotland. I got off the train and the thing that pottered through my mind was, “Why on earth would you not want international students coming to Paisley, spending money in the local economy, enjoying Scotland, going and spending money on the west coast—all the things that those individuals can do in terms of attracting their friends and family to come and spend some time with them?” I think there is really good reason to think that this is not just special pleading for universities; these are attractive individuals for a much broader range of reasons.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I bring the Minister in, does any other colleague want to ask anything?

[Paul Blomfield]

Q Can I pick up on a point that you touched on earlier, Ms Blackstock, and which we talked about with earlier witnesses—the right of appeal for settled status? The Government have previously suggested that the process would be a relatively straightforward one, with very few areas of discretion. There does, however, seem to be some grey area in relation to how the Home Office might be able to treat those who have not exercised treaty rights, and so there is a potential for refusals that might require challenge. If there is no formal process of appeal, how satisfactory do you both think that the remaining options provided for people—administrative review and judicial review—are in exercising rights?

Jodie Blackstock: The problem with simply relying on judicial review as a mechanism is the difficulty in mounting a judicial review now, as a result of the changes made to access to legal aid prior to permission for judicial review, and the fact that judicial review is not perfect. In order to be successful in a judicial review, you need to demonstrate that the process by which the decision was made was flawed. That does not remake the decision; it sends the decision back to be made again, according to whatever error needs to be addressed. That, in itself, seems to be the most bureaucratic and inappropriate method for what is, as you say, potentially a simple grey area that requires a simple review.

Internal administrative review might be a sensible solution if it was not set against the context of a Home Office that has been struggling, as we know, for the past few years to make decisions in a way that provides public confidence. Without an independent appeal right, we are concerned that that would be all that was available. We are talking about a significant number of people who will apply to this scheme, with every potential for there to be inadequate administrative provision to deal with it, so an appeal right seems pretty important to us.

Gracie Bradley: I agree with that assessment, and I would add that up to half of appeals are successful, so it is all the more vital that people have an appeal right and that they have legal aid.

[Caroline Nokes]

Q I think you have both mentioned the Law Commission review and its publication of the consultation paper on how the immigration rules could be simplified. You will not get any argument from me about the idea that the rules could be simpler. I wondered whether you had both responded to that consultation, and whether—in as short a period as possible—you could set out any specific simplifications that you have asked for?

Jodie Blackstock: We did not respond to it, but we have spoken to the Law Commission in general about the need for simplification of procedural rules for people across the justice system. Our report “Understanding Courts”, which we produced a couple of weeks ago, calls for simplification so that litigants in person—or anyone seeking to use our justice system—can understand the system. The fact that immigration rules can be amended so swiftly and there is no requirement for primary scrutiny of those changes is problematic, but at the same time we accept that the rules deal with an incredibly complex set of arrangements, so some careful thought will be required about how to simplify those rules.

Gracie Bradley: Liberty did not respond to that consultation.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Office is seeking to move to digital by default in many of our processes. I recognise that this is the way forward. I spent a very happy six months at the Cabinet Office as the Minister for the Government Digital Service, recognising that the delivery of services digitally is the way forward. With the digital right-to-work checks and the roll-out of the digital right-to-rent checks, we already have a system that makes sure the individual employer or landlord can see only the evidence to which they are entitled, rather than having a biometric card that lays out all a person’s details. It can be tailored so the potential employer gets to see only the evidence of the right to work. I believe that the system works well and when I showed it to the landlords’ representative panel, they engaged with and were enthused by it. It has also worked well for employers. Digital status that is backed up and can be evidence going forward, simply and easily, is much better than a document that potentially contains the risk of fraud and that might need renewing every 10 years, in the same way we have to renew our passports.

This is the Bill that will end free movement. That is not the role of the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is where we will enshrine citizens’ rights.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I share the comments made from this side of the Committee regarding the Minister’s approach to the Bill and, indeed, to her brief. Can she explain what consideration the Government have given to one of the single biggest national groups affected by any freedom of movement—UK nationals: the 1.2 million Brits who live and work in the European Union. If we poll young people, we find that their biggest regret about our leaving is losing their right to freedom of movement within the European Union. What assessment has she made of that issue, because reciprocity is key?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that reciprocity is key—it is crucial. Although we have it within our power to legislate to protect the rights of the 3.5 million here, we do not have the right to legislate in France, Germany or Spain. I am absolutely conscious of the very real concerns. We heard some of them in the evidence sessions, but I have also met repeatedly with representatives of those who live in EU member states, who are concerned.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of new clauses 15 to 18, and to offer our support to new clauses 33, 35 and 47 to 49.

Mr Stringer, you will no doubt recall, as other hon. Members will, our first Opposition day debate after the referendum in 2016. In that debate, we called on the Government to offer a unilateral guarantee concerning the rights of EU nationals. I am confident that doing so would have led to reciprocal guarantees for UK citizens by the EU27. It would have prevented two and a half years of uncertainty and anxiety for EU nationals and their families, and it would have set off the negotiations on the right tone. In contrast, the Government promised the EU the “row of the summer” over the scheduling of the talks.

We must remember that we are talking about not only the concerns of EU citizens in the UK but, given the principle of reciprocity, the concerns of the 1.2 million Brits in the rest of Europe. It is disappointing that during the entire process, none of the three Secretaries of State for Exiting the European Union has agreed to meet the British in Europe group. The fact that the Government did not secure their onward freedom of movement as part of the withdrawal agreement says an awful lot about their commitment to that important group of UK citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions that further evidence is being demanded. Is that not precisely what started to happen with the Windrush scandal, causing so many problems? Is that not why we need as many safeguards as possible in the scheme?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. With the history of the Windrush experience being so close, one would imagine that we would not yet have forgotten its lessons and would seek to apply them in this situation. We tabled the new clauses precisely because of that concern.

It is well known that other problems with the process include its inaccessibility to iPhone users. The Government talked about how easy this process would be—people would be able to do it on their phones—but that is not the case for half of the UK’s adults, who happen to use an iPhone. The inability to develop an app for use on an iPhone does not create a great deal of confidence in the rest of the process or the Home Office’s ability to handle it. People who already have proof of permanent residence are being asked to provide evidence of it, even though they were promised a simple swap to settled status. We need to have local support centres where people can apply offline, but they are not available.

The new clauses would remove the category of pre-settled status. This distinction, whereby an individual must be resident for five years to qualify for settled status, seems to be the result of a copy-and-paste exercise from the rules for permanent residence. A number of the stakeholders from whom the Committee took evidence do not see the rationale for it and believe that it serves no clear purpose. In fact, it creates more bureaucracy for individuals and the Home Office—this morning we discussed how difficult the Home Office sometimes finds it to deal with complicated or even simple procedures.

The Government have already admitted that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish easily between EU citizens who arrive before and after 29 March, which adds another layer of uncertainty. We can easily foresee the confusion for employers and landlords, who will wonder what different rights apply to the different categories, with detrimental effects for the holders of pre-settled status. I would welcome clarification from the Minister. If it is not simply to mirror the rules on permanent residence, can she explain the rationale for pre-settled status?

New clause 15 sets out other requirements, such as ensuring that applicants are issued with physical documentation of their proof of status. I acknowledge that this replicates new clause 35, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. It is another area where the Home Office will inevitably have to move. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Professor Smismans vividly illustrated not only the administrative hassle of a digital system, but the potential implications for the treatment by what they describe as “private actors” and for

“equal access to work and housing.”

No other immigration status in this country operates exclusively digitally. The Government have said that they want this system to be more user-friendly than the current application process, but members of the3million group have made it absolutely clear that physical proof of their status would improve their experience of the system and provide some much-needed reassurance. I really do not understand why the Government are so resistant to that, and I urge the Minister to take the opportunity on this issue to work with, rather than against, EEA nationals and the people who speak for them. I imagine that this is an area that the Government will have to move on, as they did on the fee—many of us argued for it for a long time before the change was made.

New clause 15 would put on the face of the Bill the Government’s commitment not to levy a fee. For a long time, the Government were insistent on the need to charge £65 for an application. I am sure the Minister will embarrassingly recall that—in a written answer to me—she was not prepared to rule out the £65 fee for victims of modern slavery and trafficking at that stage. I am delighted that the Government moved on the issue. It might have been because of the embarrassment that, at one stage, the European Parliament was even considering covering the cost of the fees on behalf of EU nationals in this country. After campaigning by Opposition Members and other parties, along with the3million and trade unions, it was a good step that the Prime Minister conceded that the application should be free; therefore, the Government should have no issue putting that into the legislation.

New clause 16 details the rights of family members of EEA nationals who are eligible for settled status. New clause 18 would make it explicit that article 8 of schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998—the right to respect for private and family life—applied to holders of settled status and of the work visa for EEA and Swiss nationals dealt with in new clause 21.

On new clause 17, the Government have repeatedly stated that there would be only three criteria for settled status: nationality of a relevant country or a family member, residence in the UK and a criminality check. The rules in the appendix of the Immigration Rules go beyond that; they leave a loophole where someone who is not a serious criminal and otherwise eligible could be denied settled status on the basis of non-exercise of treaty rights. New clause 17 seeks to address this issue. Following legal action from the JCWI, from whom we took evidence, the Government narrowed the rules, but the power still remains. In written answers to me, the Minister has stated:

“the UK has decided, as a matter of domestic policy, to be more generous than the draft Withdrawal Agreement in certain respects. In particular, those applying under the scheme will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, such as any requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance or generally to detail the exercise of specific rights under EU law, such as the right to work.”

The new clause would enshrine that policy in law.

If the Government do not accept new clause 17, could the Minister explain why they are so intent on wishing to retain a power that they never intend to use?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I give my support to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Sheffield Central, who made a lot of excellent points, including about the need or otherwise for pre-settled status.

This is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in this Committee. We all know that the settled status scheme is a huge undertaking. There is no doubt in my mind that the Home Office is doing its best to implement it to the best of its abilities. I do not question the commitment and effort made to attempt to have that scheme reach as many people as possible. The amendments are not about that, but whether EEA nationals and family members should be required to apply for their rights in the first place.

We are clear that EEA nationals’ rights should be declared in law. They should be able to retain their rights without any need to apply. Instead of applying for the right to remain in what is their home country, instead people would apply for documents simply to evidence that right. After all, that is pretty much the position they are in now: EEA nationals can make the UK their home simply by meeting the qualifying criteria by exercising their EU treaty rights. However, even though they do not need to, many find it very handy to apply for a document that proves they are exercising treaty rights and are allowed to remain here, so they apply for residence documents. Those documents do not give them any extra rights, but are simply convenient. It is far easier to hand a residence document to a landlord than a few months or years of bills, bank statements and wage slips to prove their right to be in the country.

All we are saying is that the same should happen in future. The Bill will strip people of hugely important rights; it should therefore also replace those lost rights with other rights that are granted automatically. All those who meet the Home Office criteria for settled status should be granted it as a matter of law. Applications for settled status documents would then be the means to simply evidence those rights, just in the same way as happens now. All that will become hugely important the day after the deadline for settled status applications passes.

If we do not make these changes, the evidence tells us that hundreds of thousands of people will be here without any status at all. They could, in theory, be removed. The Home Office talks of proportionate responses in allowing those with a reasonable excuse to apply late. However, that is tinkering around the edges. The fact remains that there will still be hundreds of thousands of people here without permission—people who were lawfully resident one day, and unlawfully the next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are moving to a position of everything being digital by default. We think that the correct way forward. I have enjoyed my exchanges with the3million. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central suggested that I had not adequately engaged with them. I have met them on several occasions and listened to their views, but we do differ on the determination that we have to use the digital status. We believe that any 21st-century Government would want to do that.

[Paul Blomfield]

With my respect for the Minister I would not want it to be suggested that I was misrepresenting her engagement with the3million, and I am aware that she had productive discussions with them. However, there have been critical issues on which she has not been prepared to listen, and the issue of physical status documentation is one of them. It still eludes them, as it eludes us, why the Minister cannot agree to have a physical document available as an option for those who want it.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. Just because I disagree, that does not mean that I have not listened. We have made a commitment to digital by default, which I think is the right way forward. I made a point earlier about the challenge of different types of document, and the difficulties that might be presented if some people could produce one sort of document and others were reliant on digital only. I happen to think—perhaps I spent a long six months as the Minister responsible for the Government Digital Service—that this is the right way forward. The Government have always been very clear that this is our direction of travel.

I understand that it represents a cultural change for many, and I am very conscious that many EU member states not only require an identity document to be held at all times, but enforce compulsory identification on request, for instance from police officers. That is very different from the way in which the UK behaves. We do not have those requirements, nor are they part of our culture. Our methods of proving identity and rights do not have to mirror what other countries do.

[Paul Blomfield]

I find it difficult to accept the Minister’s general statement that those are not part of our culture. It has been pretty clear from evidence from employers and landlords that they would find physical documents much easier to deal with. If she is wrong on this, and if we fail in our endeavours to make the amendment, will she agree to the Home Office reviewing the practice within a reasonable period of introducing it?

[Caroline Nokes]

From the demonstrations that I have had of the digital right-to-work check, and the work that I have done with the Landlords Consultative Panel surrounding the digital right to rent checks, we have seen a very simple and straightforward procedure where the individual can send a time-limited link to a prospective employer that does not require them to do a great deal of research to find digital status; it is there at the click of a mouse button. However, I am listening to the views put to me by the Committee, and will reflect on them over the next few weeks.

As I said, the new digital capability forms part of moving the UK’s immigration system to digital by default, and is a simpler, safer and more convenient system. The proposed new clause would be a step backwards in simplifying the current system. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

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

I will be brief. The Minister will know that I have raised various points about non-EEA nationals and derived rights on previous occasions. The new clause would simply ensure that those people were treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who reside in the UK, if and when they apply for settled status under the immigration rules.

My understanding is that Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira carers are all covered by the withdrawal agreement, but Zambrano carers are not. There are also questions about what will happen to all those groups if there is not a deal. In a Westminster Hall debate, the Minister made positive noises about ensuring that their rights are protected, but I am still struggling to find detailed provisions for what will happen to each of those groups. I would appreciate an update on that.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will be even briefer, which I am sure will be generally welcomed. We support the new clause, which concerns an important group of people with derived rights who have been left without certainty about their position. There is a strong imperative for that to be resolved, and for us to extend the same rights to them as to others.

[Caroline Nokes]

I, too, will be as brief as I can. I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their new clause 37, which seeks to give those with a derivative right of residence access to the EU settlement scheme.

It may be helpful if I explain that a derivative right of residence is one that stems from the EU treaties rather than from the free movement directive, and it has been established through Court of Justice of the European Union judgments. The rights identified by the Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases are protected by the draft withdrawal agreement. The rights of Zambrano carers are not protected by the agreement.

The Government have been clear that provision will be made in the immigration rules for individuals currently resident with a derivative right of residence. I fully appreciate that those people need certainty about their status. We are resolving the final details within Government, in consultation with other affected Departments. Subject to securing my colleagues’ agreement, I expect to be able to confirm the position for that cohort in the immigration rules to be laid before Parliament shortly.

In summary, the Government agree that we need to protect the rights of those who are resident here on the basis of derivative rights. We have already committed to making provision for them in the immigration rules, and we are just finalising precisely how we will achieve that. I hope to have further positive news for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East shortly. For that reason, I ask him to consider whether it is necessary to press the new clause to a vote.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

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

Members will be aware that there were some concerns about the terms of the withdrawal agreement in relation to citizens’ rights, including about the apparent requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance. I very much welcome what the Government have said about being more generous in that respect and not requiring evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance. The new clause would simply put that commitment in the Bill.

This ground was largely covered in our debate on new clause 17, including by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, so I do not need to say much more. We simply seek reassurance from the Minister that that remains the Government’s position and that they have no plans to change it, and ask whether she will consider putting that in the Bill.

[Paul Blomfield]

We support the new clause. The Minister wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton to say that the Government have no intention of requiring comprehensive sickness insurance, so I assume they would have no issue with putting it in legislation. If they agreed to do so, they would send a very strong signal of their intentions.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their new clause 44, which seeks to ensure that the EU settlement scheme does not place a requirement on applicants to hold, or to have held, comprehensive sickness insurance. I welcome the intention of the new clause, but it is not necessary. The Government have been clear from the beginning that we would not be testing for comprehensive sickness insurance. We made that clear as early as June 2017, when we published our public document on safeguarding the position of EU citizens, and the Prime Minister reiterated it in October 2017 in her open letter to EU citizens.

Appendix EU to the immigration rules does not contain a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, and that will not change. Eligibility for the scheme will continue to be based on residence and not permitted activity. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the clause.