Partner and Spousal Visas: Minimum Income

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right. This is discriminatory not simply in the way my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) mentioned, but in terms of wealth.

Let us reflect on the sorts of jobs that would not reach the minimum income. A newly qualified nurse is below the starting threshold on a salary of £28,407; a newly qualified teacher is well below the higher threshold at £30,000; and a starting police officer on £36,775 is again below the threshold. Entry-level positions in business start-ups are also below the threshold at £37,500. The University of Sheffield told me that 557 of its researchers—people doing vital work in the life sciences and in research for our economy—are on a salary below the threshold.

According to the Migration Observatory, around 50% of UK employees earn less than the £29,000 threshold and 70% earn less than £38,700. That means that 50% to 70% are unable to marry a non-British citizen of their choice and live together in the UK. There are significant regional variations too, with average earnings in London around 30% higher than in the north-east, for example, and in my area of South Yorkshire average earnings are around £27,000. People in Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-east, the north-west, the east midlands, Wales and Northern Ireland will be worst affected.

The new rules will discriminate in other ways too. They will particularly affect women who, on average, earn less and are more likely to have caring responsibilities and therefore do not work full time. They discriminate against minorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out. They have a disproportionate impact on the self-employed, on younger people and those at the early stage of their career. Why, therefore, are the Government doing it? They argue that it is to stop people being a burden on the state. I look forward to the Minister trying to advance that argument.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Member makes a compelling case. On the question of regional and local variations, in my community, we expect young people to go away for further and higher education due to the limited provision within the community. I encourage that, because I always say to young people, “Orkney and Shetland will still be here when you are ready to come back.” They go away, they meet people from other parts of the world, they fall in love and they want to bring them back. That enriches our communities in so many different ways, quite apart from the economic and social contribution. Does that aspect—the human aspect—for communities such as ours not really deserve be given better consideration by the Government?

[Paul Blomfield]

The right hon. Member is right; the failure to consider the human aspect of the decision runs right through the policy. As I say, the Government are arguing that it is to stop people being a burden on the state, yet those who come to the UK on a spousal visa do not have access to public funds. They are also required to contribute to NHS costs with the immigration health surcharge, which has been rising significantly. Indeed, many are younger and do not use the NHS very much at that point.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I wish to concentrate my remarks on part 1 of the Bill.

Less than two years ago, in November 2013, the Home Secretary said that combating modern slavery was her top priority. It was an aim that won wide support on both sides of the House and it found expression in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but this Bill risks undoing the progress made with that Act.

I am sure that the Government do not intend to undermine their own legislation so soon after it has become law, but all the evidence shows that the more vulnerable workers are, the stronger the hand of the gangmasters over them and the less likely they are to come forward and report their abusers. So what does this Bill do? It increases their vulnerability and strengthens the hand of the gangmasters. It does that by threatening exploited workers with 12 months in prison if they are deemed to have committed the offence of “illegal working” in clause 8.

Let us be in no doubt: many will think that they have committed that offence even if they have not. Some 78% of those the National Crime Agency says have been exploited for labour in the UK actually have the right to work here as European economic area nationals, but rights awareness among these workers is very low, and options are limited, which allows unscrupulous employers to hold the threat of removal, and now imprisonment, over them—even when it is not a real possibility.

The charity Focus on Labour Exploitation, which works directly with victims of trafficking and of which I am a trustee, has identified three drivers of labour exploitation: the feeling among migrant workers that they deserve less, or have fewer rights than UK citizens; the lack of checks on labour standards in the workplace, from health and safety to minimum wage enforcement; and a fear of officials, especially immigration officials.

On each of the three drivers, the Bill makes the situation worse. First, on the rights of migrant workers, it puts the focus on immigration status as a condition of asserting labour rights. On that note, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister why the definition of “worker” in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 has not been used. The Bill criminalises the exploited worker who, whether they are committing the offence of illegal working or not, can be treated or threatened by a gangmaster as if they are.

Secondly, on labour market enforcement, it is deeply unfortunate that the review was published only today, meaning that we did not have the opportunity to consider it fully before the debate, and that the consultation will still close on 9 November, not giving adequate time for proper consideration of the proposals. From the quick look I have had at the Government’s proposals, I have found no evidence of the increased resources or powers that are clearly needed for the director of labour market enforcement. Last year, the Migration Advisory Committee powerfully found that

“on average, a firm can expect a visit from HMRC inspectors once in every 250 years and expect to be prosecuted once in a million years.”

Let us be clear that those of us who were calling for an extension of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s remit during the debate on the Modern Slavery Bill meant a genuine extension, building on the good work in the sectors where it already operates, and not the pick-and-mix approach with no additional resources suggested by the Bill and the consultation.

The third driver of labour exploitation is the overlap between labour market enforcement and immigration enforcement, which is at the heart of the Bill. The very decision to include labour in market enforcement measures in an Immigration Bill is hugely counter-productive, and the mistrust of immigration officials exists regardless of migrant status. The consequence will be that labour exploitation is not rooted out and that it will continue, contrary to all the wishes of this Government, to be a pull factor for migration.

In May, the Prime Minister set out the need for what he described as the labour market enforcement agency, of which the post of director suggested in the Bill falls far short. He set out that ambition to prevent exploitation and to stop migrants undercutting British workers.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

There is one further area of what we might call “legacy work” from the Modern Slavery Act, which is the position of overseas domestic workers. That was being reviewed by James Ewins, but we have heard nothing about it. Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that we will hear something about that review during the Bill’s passage?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, as he puts his finger on one of the crucial issues in the 2015 Act about which many of us have reservations and which needs to be addressed. That is exactly the point that I am making: unless we give migrants the confidence to come forward and whistleblow on exploitation we will weaken the position and strengthen the hands of the gangmasters. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will fail to meet the Prime Minister’s aspiration to prevent exploitation and to stop migrants undercutting British workers. I genuinely hope that the Minister, for whom I have high regard, will take on board the comments of those of us who worked constructively with the Government during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill so that we do not undo its legacy.

Immigration Detention

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I do indeed. It underlines the urgency of today’s debate and the need to address the issue. Nobody, especially not the Government, wants to see the immigration detention estate expanding, but without a shift in policy along the lines recommended in the report, it will be an inevitable, deeply distressing and disturbing reality.

The UK is alone in the EU in not having a maximum time limit on detention. That lack of a time limit was a constant theme in the evidence we received during our inquiry and one on which we received some striking testimony. Time and again we were told that detention was worse than prison, because in prison people know when they will get out. As one former detainee said:

“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”

A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of a time limit also encourages poor working.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Like others, I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work, and I am grateful to him for his comments about my former colleague Sarah Teather, who did tremendous work in this area in her time here. On the lack of a time limit, does he think that inadequate access to legal representation is one of the reasons why people end up in open-ended detention in that way? The briefing supplied to us today by Bail for Immigration Detainees points out that 11% of those detained have never had any legal representation at all.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I very much agree with him. That was a feature of the evidence we received. Addressing that issue is important to ensure justice and speed in processing applications, which is in the interests of everybody.

I mentioned poor working in the consideration of cases, and the representation we heard from the prisons inspectorate suggested that, in one quarter of the cases it had looked at, prolonged detention was the result of inefficient case working. Therefore, having a time limit is not simply about justice and humanity; it is about ensuring a focus in the system and changing the culture. Medical experts also told us that the sense of being in limbo—the sense of hopelessness and despair—leads to deteriorating mental health. One expert from the Helen Bamber Foundation told us that those detained for more than 30 days had significantly higher mental health problems.

Although they are called immigration removal centres, we found that most people who leave detention do so for reasons other than being removed from the UK. That is an important point. According to the latest immigration statistics, more than half the detainees released are released back into the country, so this is not just about the impact on those detained; it is also about cost and the good use of public money. It costs some £36,000 a year to detain somebody for 12 months, so a huge amount of taxpayers’ money is being spent on detaining people who we will eventually release into the UK anyway.

Our central recommendation is for a maximum time limit set in statute, not simply to right the wrong of indefinite definition, but to change the culture endemic in the system. We settled on 28 days, not only because it reflects best practice from other countries, but because it is workable for the Home Office, given that in the first three quarters of 2014 only 37% of people were detained for longer. It also reflects the evidence of the mental health impact on those detained for more than a month. We also recommended that decisions to detain should meet the aims of the Home Office’s own guidance—that is, taken more sparingly and only genuinely as a last resort to effect removal. Deprivation of liberty should not be a decision taken lightly, nor should it be taken arbitrarily. Currently, decisions are taken by relatively junior Home Office officials, with no automatic judicial oversight. With no time limit, it has become too easy for people to be detained for months on end, with no meaningful way of challenging their continued detention.

The introduction of a time limit and the reduction in the reliance on detention would represent a significant change. In order to detain fewer people for shorter periods, the Government will need to introduce a much wider range of community-based alternatives. In our report, we give a number of examples of those alternatives, from places as different as the United States and Australia, which is often cited as an example because of its tough immigration system, as well as Sweden, which we visited in the course of the inquiry. These alternatives allow people to remain in communities while their cases are resolved, including when making arrangements to leave the country. These alternatives are not only more humane, but cost less and have a higher compliance level.

There is a UK precedent. When the coalition Government committed to reducing the number of children detained, they introduced a family returns process, which the House of Commons Library described as designed

“to encourage refused families to comply with instructions to depart from the UK at an earlier stage, such as by giving them more control over the circumstances of their departure.”

It worked. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of children detained, and the Home Office’s own evaluation of the scheme found that most families complied with the process—with no increase in absconding.

There are a number of other recommendations in the report; others will refer to them, but let me briefly cover them. We recommend that pregnant women and victims of rape and sexual violence should never be detained, and that the shocking harassment and abuse experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex detainees must be addressed.