Immigration and Nationality Statistics

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I also thank my colleagues from across the House who have contributed.

There has been an important focus today on statistics, which I welcome because this Government believe in making good use of facts and evidence when delivering policy. Various points have been raised, and I want to come back to all of them, but, if I do miss any, I hope that Members will allow me to respond to some of their points in writing. I also recognise that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), is unable to be here today.

Before I address Members’ points, I want to make a few remarks reflecting on the immigration system that the Government inherited. The hon. Member for West Suffolk alluded to the situation that we found, and it is worth reflecting on what the latest official figures show because they shocked us all. Under the previous Government, net migration grew almost five times higher in four years—and is still four times higher—-than it was before the pandemic, driven heavily by an increase in overseas recruitment. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have both been extremely clear that net migration needs to come down. We are, therefore, continuing with visa controls, which we supported when they were introduced by the previous Government. However, we are also clear that much more needs to be done to restore order and credibility to the system. That is why—

[Julia Lopez]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will make some remarks; I know the hon. Lady has already contributed.

That is why we are pursuing a new approach to end the overreliance on international recruitment by ensuring that the immigration, skills and training systems are properly aligned in a way they have not previously been. Further details of our plans to reduce net migration will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. I am sure the hon. Member for West Suffolk will want to contribute and bring his own experience in government, which I do respect. I am sure he will also want to engage on how we build the solutions and the architecture that we need for a new part of how Government works, working across the Home Office, skills and our future needs, as well as on how we ensure that we are supporting migrants into work, which is also part of the role of the DWP.

Let me turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. It is worth saying that the issue of dangerous small boat crossings has been a phenomenon of the last five or six years. There has been an increase from 300 people coming in 2018 to an average of over 36,000 a year in the last three years—a 120-fold increase. We cannot deny that, in a few short years, an entire criminal smuggler industry has been built around boat crossings, and that has also been allowed to take hold across the UK border. The cost of the asylum system also increased by more than five times to £5.4 billion between 2019-20 and last year. Returns of those with no right to be here are 30% lower than they were in 2010, and asylum-related returns were down by 20% compared with 14 years ago. That was the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, and former Ministers themselves have admitted it was shameful.

On the calls for more data, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics publish a very wide range of statistical information on a regular basis. Our country’s statisticians, and those working in my Department and other Departments, are in fact world leaders in the production of statistics and analysis on the topic of migration. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the UK publishes, I believe, more statistics on migration than any other country. The content and presentation of official statistics is kept under review and that regular oversight allows us to balance the production of regular statistics with the need to develop new statistics and statistical products for future release. We remain committed to the issues of transparency and ensuring that public and parliamentary debates are informed by robust and accurate statistics, and to keeping statistics under review.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk raised a few comments on some of his correspondence and it would be helpful to refer to some of that. I assure him that the Home Office has received his letter of 1 September and is due to respond in due course. The breakdown of £700 million in costs, which the hon. Member inquired about, has been published on gov.uk and sets out the cost of the Rwanda partnership and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which were inseparable. The purpose of the IMA was to prevent individuals arriving in the UK from remaining here, and Rwanda was intended to be a vehicle for enabling that. To try and separate them is deliberately misrepresenting the true cost of what was clearly a failed policy.

[Nick Timothy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman can come back in a moment.

The proposal to send asylum applicants to Rwanda was impractical, costly and would not have worked to reduce irregular migration. We believe in dealing with these issues with common sense in the work we have been undertaking: making sure we have a new Border Security Command and Border Security Commander, working upstream, building new partnerships with other countries and doing that in order to also disrupt the supply chains of criminal gangs, who the hon. Member for West Suffolk knows are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We will continue to spend taxpayer money on real solutions such as breaking the business models of those criminal gangs. In fact, when we made it clear that the Rwanda partnership would come to an end, we saw, for example, the repurposing of two flights provisionally booked for Rwanda, which were used to return a number of individuals to their home countries instead.

[Nick Timothy]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I appreciate that she has been given a hospital pass by the immigration Minister, who really ought to be the person here, but last time she was, she did not give a very good account of herself, and has been avoiding writing letters or giving any of the numbers that the Opposition have been asking for.

The statement—which was obviously pre-prepared, and I understand how these things work—does not address any of the questions that I raised in my speech. It is not true that we are world leaders in the collection of statistics that relate to immigration. Anyway, the questions related not to overall levels of net migration from particular countries and so on, but to things such as the nationality and immigration status of criminals and imprisoned criminals, or people living in social housing or in receipt of benefits. We do not have any information on that, and if we are compared to some European countries such as Denmark or the Netherlands, a study from which shows that the average asylum migrant costs something like £400,000 net over their lifetimes, we are nowhere. Can the Minister give us a quick answer on that?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said, we do keep our statistics under review. He will also know that a lot of research on the cost and benefit of migration has been done by the Migration Advisory Committee, and its annual report, published this week, is another example of the work it is doing, with its capacity expanding to help us address some of the challenges of bringing net migration down alongside having a more coherent policy for how we do that across Government. Indeed, the recent estimate of the average contribution of skilled workers is also demonstrated in the report.

I will make this point before I finish: the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the Ministry of Justice does publish data on foreign national offenders in the UK in its official statistics. He will also know that we have seen a 21% increase in foreign criminals being removed from the UK, compared to the same period last year. That sends a clear message to foreign criminals that if they break the law, they will not be allowed to stay in the UK.

I recognise the importance of the debate and the issues that have been raised today. I thank the hon. Member for raising them and we will respond to him in due course.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

eVisas

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Written Statements

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

The Home Office is developing a border and immigration system that is more digital and streamlined. E-visas—which over 6 million people have been successfully using for several years—are a key part of this transformation and will enhance people’s experience and increase the immigration system’s security and efficiency. We understand that the move away from physical documents represents a change and that this will be a significant adjustment for many. For this reason, e-visas have been, and continue to be, rolled out incrementally and with support available to help customers use the e-visa and online services. The majority of biometric residence permit cards are due to expire on 31 December 2024 and customers are being supported to move to e-visas. We welcome feedback on how we can improve our services and continue to support customers through the roll-out.

Benefits of e-visas

It is important to recognise that there are significant benefits from e-visas. Creating a UK visas and immigration account is free and straightforward, and it does not change or remove a customer’s underlying immigration status. For example, if someone has leave to remain until September 2025 but their biometric residence card expires on 31 December 2024, their leave until September 2025 is unaffected. E-visas are secure and cannot be lost, stolen or tampered with, unlike a physical document. They can be accessed anywhere and in real time.

Using their UK Visas and Immigration account, customers can share relevant information about their status securely with third parties, such as employers, landlords, travel operators or private service providers. Customers will also benefit from the secure automated access that Government Departments and partners, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the NHS, Border Force and carriers, will have to their immigration status, streamlining processes and access to key services.

An e-visa is like an electronic version of a BRP and is used to view and prove status, for example to work or to rent a home. The e-visa is created by the Home Office for each customer accurately to reflect their immigration status, in line with their physical document. The e-visa is then accessed by the customer setting up a UKVI account with their own log-in—a process which has been shown to be very straightforward in the vast majority of cases.

New statistics we are publishing today have shown that over 3.1 million people, mostly with BRPs, have successfully made the transition to e-visas from March to November this year. There are still a proportion of customers who have not yet signed up, and we would strongly encourage them to do so. We also encourage all parents or carers to create accounts for their children.

This account creation process has been more difficult for a small proportion of customers, for example where they have lost their BRP and have no other form of identity document. We have already made changes to improve the process for these customers, including creating UKVI accounts automatically for newly recognised refugees since 1 November. But we remain concerned that some of the risks of the roll-out, particularly for those making the transition from BRPs and legacy documents, were not clearly identified and managed under the previous Administration, and we have been consulting stakeholders on other issues raised by them, along with the wider concern that this change could lead to another Windrush. For these reasons, we have been working intensively since the summer to understand the challenges being experienced, to listen and respond to the issues raised, and to adjust the roll-out plans accordingly.

That is why today I am updating the House on changes we have made to the roll-out to address some of the areas of concern, and on how we will continue to engage with stakeholders and communities through the transition.

Legacy document holders

We have streamlined the process for legacy document holders making the transition to e-visas. The updated “no time limit” application process was further streamlined in October, building on enhancements delivered to the old version of the form in September, and addressing concerns about the evidential burden placed on applicants. This new form, which went live at the end of October, also creates a UKVI account as part of the process, removing the need for NTL customers to take the additional step to create their account and access their e-visa. Any customers who continue to have to use the old process because they have no valid ID document will have an account created manually for them by caseworkers. This is a big step forward in smoothing the journey for legacy document holders.

Those holders of legacy documents (such as passports containing ink stamps or a vignette sticker) will still be able to prove their rights as they do today, where their legacy documents currently permit them to do so, including the right to rent or to travel to the UK. It should be noted that stamps in expired passports have not been acceptable to prove the right to work since 2014. The position for legacy document holders does not change at the end of the year, but we encourage them to transition to e-visas by making a NTL application, to access the significant benefits that e-visas bring to customers. More information on this process is available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/online-immigration-status-evisa

Working with carriers

The Home Office has developed technology to enable carriers to check immigration status automatically via systems checks. Over the course of the last three years, the Home Office has engaged extensively with carriers about the roll-out of ETA and e-visas to travel, to ensure they are fully prepared for the coming changes. This engagement has included direct communications with carriers on an individual basis, regular carrier forums, and direct training sessions for carrier staff. As we get closer to the end of the year, we have enhanced our engagement with airlines to ensure their understanding of e-visas and automated checking of status. We are training staff across the world on the options available to them to check immigration permissions, including use of direct digital checks, the online view-and-prove service, and the 24/7 carrier support hub, which they can contact to confirm a passenger’s immigration status where necessary.

We are committed to delivering an approach which enables people to demonstrate their status and access the services in the simplest and most secure way possible. We will continue engaging extensively with our stakeholders to ensure that there is a strong understanding of all changes to our border and legal migration system, and a clear messaging campaign to spread public awareness about our move to e-visas.

Extending use of expiring BRPs

While we encourage all BRP holders to switch to using their e-visa via their UKVI account before their BRP expires, if a customer has not created a UKVI account by 1 January 2025 and their BRP has expired, they will be able to do so quickly and easily next year, using their expired BRP if needed.

However, we have also listened to concerns about the risk to customers who are travelling after 31 December, where their underlying status has not expired. In order to smooth the transition to e-visas, we have decided to allow carriers to accept a BRP or EU settlement scheme BRC expiring on or after 31 December 2024 as valid evidence of permission to travel until at least 31 March, and this date will be kept under review. Customers travelling in the early part of the year are therefore advised to continue carrying their expired BRP, as this will add to the range of checking options already available to carriers.

While this will not affect the way that Border Force conducts its passenger checks, it will provide confidence and reassurance to travellers that they will not face unnecessary delays when proving their travel status with airlines and other carriers, and it reflects our strong desire to act on the concerns that have been raised with us and ensure a smooth transition with minimal disruption for travellers at a busy time of the year.

Increasing support for vulnerable people

We have a number of support services in place to help vulnerable customers to transition to e-visas. There are several national grant-funded bodies and community-based organisations spread across the UK ready to offer immediate, free and specialist support for vulnerable individuals in their transition to an e-visa throughout the rest of 2024 and beyond. Further information about the four national grant-funded organisations and the support that they can provide is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evisa-community-support-for-vulnerable-people

Customers can contact the resolution centre, which provides support via email and webchat to those creating their UKVI account, and telephone support to those using the online immigration status services. Individuals can also nominate a helper and give them limited access to their account, so that they can assist with creating a UKVI account, with completing details to access an e-visa, and with submitting any immigration application. Where a person is unable to manage their own affairs due to, for example, age or disability, a proxy, who is authorised, can create and manage the account on behalf of the person.

We recognise that some customers may need further assistance with IT-related aspects of creating a UKVI account. Assisted Digital (in-country only) is a free service provided by UKVI to support digitally excluded customers in creating a UKVI account. More information is available here: https://www.gov.uk/assisted-digital-help-online-applications

Printed documents

Successful visa applicants receive written confirmation by email or letter that they have been granted permission, which they can keep for their personal records. Where this document cannot be used as evidence of their status, these printed documents can be used when interacting with the Home Office, should any subsequent issues be encountered with their e-visa. Customers may also wish to print out their e-visa profile page, if they would like a physical version for their own records.

We have been recording immigration status information digitally since the turn of the century, and if someone encounters an issue with their e-visa, we can search those records to find their information and confirm their status. BRP holders are also able to retain their expired BRPs for their own records, and legacy document holders who make the switch to an e-visa will also still have their physical documents as evidence of their immigration status.

Customers can continue to use the online right to work and rent services, which have been used by millions of people for over two years to prove their rights. This includes using an expired BRP to access these services, provided the person has valid immigration status.

Technical issues

We have designed our digital services to be highly resilient, rigorously tested, and deployed across multiple data centres. Services are proactively monitored for failures, which will highlight any potential problems to allow support teams to resolve them as quickly as possible where they occur. We recognise that a small number of customers have experienced issues with their e-visas, which we are working hard to address. This includes a customer’s status not being visible or showing incorrectly.

We encourage any users experiencing issues to contact the Home Office to enable these to be investigated and resolved. Where necessary, the resolution centre can enable individuals’ status to be verified through alternative means. Customers can contact the resolution centre using an online webchat service or by phone.

Windrush

We are conscious of the lessons learned from Wendy Williams’s extensive review on the Windrush scandal. This Government are committed to ensuring that all customers, including the most vulnerable, are properly supported as we transform our immigration system. We understand that individuals may have concerns about proving their status in the absence of a physical document.

Many Windrush individuals had an immigration status that was automatically conferred on them by an Act of Parliament, so in some cases they had no physical proof. The transition to e-visas is in part designed to address that situation by ensuring that everyone with a right to stay in the UK has an e-visa which provides secure and permanent evidence of their status, as well as giving them access to online services which enable them to share evidence of their immigration status with third parties, such as an employer or a landlord.

We hope that these announcements demonstrate how seriously this Government take the need to ensure that everyone has a smooth transition to e-visas, and that any potential problems are anticipated in advance, as far as we are able to, or dealt with as quickly and smoothly as possible where not. Above all, we recognise the concerns that people have raised with us, and the issues that have needed to be resolved, and we are both taking action to address them, and committing to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with all customers and stakeholders to continue that process in the weeks to come. A copy of the e-visa partner pack will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS283]

Visa Sponsorship

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Written Statements

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

The Home Office is committed to minimising abuse of the visa and immigration system by unscrupulous employers. We are now setting out our first steps to deliver on our manifesto commitment to ban rogue employers from sponsoring overseas workers. We are setting out stronger controls to prevent employers who flout UK employment laws from sponsoring overseas workers, alongside going after those who show signs of non-compliance. No organisation is above the law or too big to fail.

For the first time, visa and employment laws will be brought into close alignment, to ensure strong protections for those who come to work in the UK, especially in important areas of our economy such as adult social care.

The Government will deliver legislation for the flagship Fair Work Agency, ensuring fair and strong employment rights for all. Through this legislation, we will ensure that any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, such as failing to comply with the national minimum wage, will have robust action taken against them—up to and including having their visa sponsorship licences refused or revoked. Alongside this, we are strengthening powers to ensure the compliance of those on the register of licensed sponsors.

Over the last two years, there have been a growing number of allegations about sponsors seeking to charge workers for sponsoring them, particularly in the care sector. Where these charges are inappropriate, individuals can fall into work-related debt and experience a significant amount of harm. To combat this, we are now taking action to ensure that if a business wishes to recruit internationally, they will be required to pay for certificates of sponsorship, sponsor licences and the associated administration themselves. This will end the intolerable practice of recovering these costs from workers, which has led to the exploitation and unfair treatment of staff, particularly care workers who have been left in debt to their employers. These rules will apply to the skilled worker route first and will be in force by the end of the year. We intend to build on this in due course, widening it to other sponsored employment routes.

This Government are also taking robust action against businesses that show signs of non-compliance such as committing minor visa rule breaches. Current rules impose action plans on businesses for only three months, but today we are committing to extending this to up to 12 months. While these longer action plans are in place, employers will be restricted in how they can use their licence, including limiting or removing the ability to sponsor overseas workers. If they do not comply with the action plan, fail to pay for the plan or make the necessary improvements by the end of their action plan, their sponsorship licence will be revoked.

We will take strong action against employers who do not comply with the rules, where necessary revoking their sponsor licence. We will strengthen this by making it harder for those with a long-term record of non-compliance to return to the sponsor register. The current penalties for breaking visa rules are too weak, with all revoked businesses facing only 12 months of sanctions—regardless of their track record. That is why we will be introducing longer cooling-off periods for businesses that repeatedly flout these rules or commit serious immigration breaches, barring them from applying for a sponsorship licence over this period and therefore hiring overseas workers.

This set of new measures shows how seriously the Government take maintaining the integrity of the visa and immigration system, ensuring that those who would seek to abuse the system face strong consequences. These measures are part of wider efforts to tackle the root causes behind the UK’s long-term reliance on international workers and wider action to link migration policy with skills and wider labour market policy. All those who work in the UK deserve decent employment with decent employers—this Government are working to ensure that happens.

[HCWS263]

Immigration Rules Change

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Written Statements

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

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.

Introduction of a visa requirement on Colombia

We are today introducing a visa requirement on all visitors from Colombia. Nationals of Colombia will also be required to obtain a direct airside transit visa if they intend to transit via the UK, having booked travel to another country. The visa requirement comes into force at 15:00 GMT today.

Consequently, the planned change to allow nationals of Colombia to apply for an electronic travel authorisation from 27 November 2024 for travel to the UK from 8 January 2025 will no longer be introduced.

There will be a four-week, visa-free transition period for those who already hold confirmed bookings to the UK obtained on or before 15:00 GMT 26 November 2024, where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 GMT, 24 December 2024. Arrangements are in place so that Colombian nationals can apply for visas. We are publicising the changes so that travellers are aware and can plan accordingly.

We are taking this action due to an increase in the number of Colombian nationals travelling to the UK for purposes other than those permitted under visitor rules since the visa requirement was lifted in November 2022. This has included a significant and sustained increase in asylum claims, and high rates of refusals at the border, due to people travelling without the intention of visiting for a permitted purpose. This increase in asylum claims and refusals has added significantly to operational pressures at the border, resulting in frontline resource being diverted from other operational priorities.

The decision to introduce a visa requirement has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. Our relationship with Colombia remains a strong and friendly one. Any decision to change a visa status is not taken lightly, and we keep the border and immigration system under regular review to ensure it continues to work in the UK national interest.

Changes relating to the Ukraine schemes

Almost three years on from the start of the conflict, we continue to stand firm with the people of Ukraine, and to show that those who need our help are still warmly welcomed in the UK. We have extended that welcome to nearly 250,000 people who have come to the UK (or had their existing permission in the UK extended) under the Ukraine schemes. To provide future certainty, in February, the UK Government announced that Ukrainians with permission under one of the Ukraine schemes would be able to extend their permission for a further 18 months through the creation of a new Ukraine permission extension scheme. Applications are due to open in early 2025, and the immigration rules we lay today will provide people with further certainty about their future by outlining the requirements of the new scheme.

The bespoke scheme will provide the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare, and education that Ukrainians have enjoyed under the existing schemes. The scheme will also be fee-free, with applications being accepted within the last 28 days of their current permission—in line with most other visas routes—to ensure Ukrainians have sufficient time to apply to the scheme.

Ukraine permission extension scheme opening

The overarching principle of UPE is to provide continued sanctuary in the UK for those who still need it while the war in Ukraine continues. Under the principles of the Ukraine schemes, UPE will continue our generous offer to those Ukrainians, and their eligible family members, who are already here. It is open to those who have previously been granted permission in the UK under the Ukraine schemes (or leave outside the rules on the same basis) who meet the criteria for applying. Applicants will also be required to have been resident in the UK (and islands) and/or Ukraine since holding permission under the Ukraine schemes.

Individuals should apply before their current permission expires. This is important, because as is the case with all other visa routes, those who allow their permission to lapse will lose their rights to receive benefits and healthcare, and to work and rent. Work is under way to mitigate any risks associated with this, and my Department will continue to work closely with other Departments, and in particular with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, to ensure that people make an application in time.

Under UPE, there will need to be adequate care and accommodation arrangements in place for children, in order to meet our safeguarding obligations. Where a child is not in the UK with their parent, we will seek parental consent to confirm their current living situation. In some cases, referral to the local authority where the child is living will be necessary. We are also aware that different members of some family units under the Ukraine schemes will currently have differing periods of permission, as they may have applied to come to the UK at different times due to their personal circumstances. Due to this, where a Ukrainian child is resident in the UK with their parent and both hold permission under the Ukraine schemes, the child’s period of permission granted to them under UPE will be aligned with that of their parent. We believe there is merit in aligning with the parent in the best interests of the child.

Ukraine extension scheme closure

In May this year, we closed the Ukraine extension scheme to all individuals, except to UK-born children with a parent who has, or has had, Ukraine scheme permission; they have still been able to apply under UES to regularise their permission in the UK. Upon the opening of the UPE scheme in early 2025, we will close the UES route completely, and UK-born children will instead apply through UPE, though they will not need to have had prior permission. This will streamline the visa routes by channelling all in-country applications through UPE, removing any confusion that might otherwise be created by having two “extension” schemes open at the same time. There is no change to the eligibility requirements for UK-born children in this regard.

Ending use of open-ended permission to travel letters

Additionally, we are ending the use of permission to travel letters in the Ukraine schemes. PTT letters were issued as part of an exceptional biometric deferral application process, implemented in response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to allow those fleeing war to quickly reach sanctuary in the UK. However, this process closed to new applicants on 7 December 2023, and all Ukraine scheme applicants are now required to attend a visa application centre to provide their biometrics before travelling.

We have provided advanced notice to applicants who have been issued with a PTT letter but not yet travelled to the UK, to ensure that any individual who wishes to use it has the opportunity to do so before restrictions take effect. Any applicants who have not travelled to the UK when the restrictions take effect will be informed that their PTT letters can no longer be used. The Homes for Ukraine scheme will remain open and uncapped for those who wish to reapply for sanctuary in the UK. This change is therefore not a reduction of support for Ukraine, and the UK Government remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

Changes to long residence route

We have always been clear that the Ukraine schemes provide temporary sanctuary in the UK only while the war in Ukraine remains ongoing, and that they are not a route to settlement in the UK. This is in line with the express wishes of the Ukrainian Government, who will need their nationals to return to help rebuild the country when it is safe to do so. To reflect this, we are making a minor change to the eligibility requirements for the long residence route, to make it clear that permission to stay in the UK under the Ukraine schemes, including the new UPE, cannot be used to qualify for permission to stay or settlement under the long residence route. This change brings the rules in step with the already established policy position.

These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 26 November 2024. On the changes that introduce a visa requirement on Colombia, due to the need to safeguard the operation of the UK’s immigration system, those changes will come into effect at 15:00 GMT on 26 November 2024.

The changes regarding the long residence route will come into effect on 18 December 2024; the changes to open the Ukraine permission extension scheme and close the Ukraine extension scheme will come into effect on 4 February 2025; and the changes to end the use of open-ended permission to travel letters will come into effect on 13 February 2025.

[HCWS250]

Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important and informative debate, and indeed for the work that he and colleagues across the House are now doing in the Petitions Committee. I am grateful to him and to colleagues for taking part today.

I want to start by saying that I totally agree with the sentiment underlying so many of the contributions—that everyone should be able to work free from fear and exploitation, and that there should be absolutely no place for hate crime or sentiments from anybody, anywhere in the country. I am sure that all hon. Members across this House take those issues extremely seriously.

I will address several of the issues raised—including tackling the exploitation that we see regarding this route, taking a preventive approach, ensuring trust, making sure that there are escape routes for people if they feel locked in with their employers, and many others—in my remarks this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Congleton (Mrs Russell), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for their contributions today.

The Government do recognise the vital contribution that health and care professionals from overseas make to our NHS and in social care, and indeed to the wider health and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford speaks with great personal experience, having worked as a nurse. I know that he, like me, will want to congratulate our mutual friend, Bejoy Sebastian, a critical care nurse, who was recently elected as president of the Royal College of Nursing. Bejoy is a true example of the incredibly important contribution that is made to our wider health sector.

Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care worker visa, which recognises the crucial contribution that international healthcare workers make, and this Government have kept that offer. The health and care worker visa provides significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Most applicants can expect a decision within three weeks of enrolling biometrics. Applicants are also exempt from having to pay the immigration health surcharge. Those benefits apply to not only the main applicants but their dependants, which I hope is a sign of how much we value the role that those coming here play in our health and care services.

The United Kingdom’s offer to health and care professionals continues to be strong, competing with those of other countries in attracting health and care professionals who may want to work overseas. However, as several hon. Members have said, it is important in that context that we look at net migration overall. Under the previous Government, net migration trebled in five years, driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment.

Our Government are clear that net migration must come down, and we are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK to support that effort. That is why the Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. That will be important in ensuring that people have opportunities to gain new skills and access these important jobs, as part of enabling the Government’s broader agenda.

Although I appreciate the arguments about granting health and care workers settlement after two years, the system must be fair to all users. That is why it would not be right to allow health and care workers to qualify after two years, when skilled workers, including those in other much-needed sectors with global demand, would need to wait until they had completed five years on a work route before they were eligible to apply for settlement.

Settlement in the UK is a privilege and not an automatic entitlement. In determining the qualifying period, the Government have to balance what is fair to all applicants with ensuring that individual applicants are able to continue the skilled work they have been issued a visa for, which often aligns so much with their passions and, in this case, with the deep compassion that so many will bring. We must ensure that the period is of a reasonable length, while also recognising the potential impact on public funds of granting settlement sooner.

On balance, the Government consider that five years is the right length of time for people to demonstrate a reasonable contribution to their sector, as well as their commitment to the UK. That is why we have no plans to reduce the length of time that health and care workers, or other skilled workers, need to complete in the UK in order to apply for settlement.

In terms of examples elsewhere, France offered frontline workers fast-track citizenship in 2020 during the covid-19 pandemic, and other countries have offered short-term visas for roles in high-demand sectors. The French offer appeared to go wider than those just in health and social care, but the scheme appears no longer to be operating. So there are examples where there can be short-term changes, but those changes may also come to an end.

However, it is right that we tackle the issues underlying the sentiment behind the petition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe powerfully outlined. In my remaining remarks, I want to tackle some of those issues, and particularly those related to displaced workers and exploitation.

I was asked what the Government are doing to more effectively tackle some of the exploitation we have seen, and it is worth laying out some of the protections that are now in place. In March 2024, there was rightly a change to sponsor guidance so that sponsors would need to be carrying out regulated activity and be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Home Office has continued to act against unscrupulous sponsors and has highlighted bad practices to the sector. It continues to share concerns and intelligence related to bad practice, and since July 2022 has revoked 452 sponsor licences in the care sector, for reasons including underpayment of salary and failing to provide workers with enough hours to maintain salary levels.

For those individuals whose employer’s licence has been revoked, the Home Office has established a joint venture with the Department of Health and Social Care and with directors of social care operating in regional hubs in England, whereby the Department has funded a process allowing the hubs to find alternative employment for those in that position. Further information can be found on the Government website. The scheme has been implemented on an exceptional basis because of the exploitative practices that have been identified in the sector, and to provide protections to victims of those practices. Concerns regarding potentially unethical and illegal employment practices should be reported to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which will investigate fully. Information on reporting those issues can also be found on the GLAA website.

Colleagues on both sides of the House raised the important issue of having a single enforcement body. In their plan to make work pay, the Government set out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, that they empower working people and that they deliver economicgrowth. The Government also introduced the Employment Rights Bill on 10 October 2024. It is important that we talk about this issue in the context of improving rights and protections for all workers.

It is also important to recognise that workers may want to change employer because of exploitation, even though their sponsor may not have lost its sponsor licence. Any worker on the health and care worker visa is able to seek alternative employment, provided they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor, and to make a new application. They are free to do that at any time, and they do not need their employer’s permission to move jobs. We strongly encourage health and care worker visa holders who think they are being exploited—whether they have concerns about pay, working rights or working hours—to come forward and report those concerns to us using the pay and work rights complaints section on the Government website. First and foremost, any worker who believes that they may be in danger should also contact the police.

If a migrant working in care has left their job because of exploitation, they should contact their regional support officer, so that they can help them try to find alternative employment. That includes people who have yet to have their visa cancelled.

In the context of some of the protections we have in place and the ability to move employer, the Government have no plans to extend the period allowed to workers who have lost their jobs, as that could leave them unable to work and support themselves for longer, increasing the risk of destitution or of becoming trapped in illegal working situations.

It is also important to recognise the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Bournemouth East, among others, that staff retention in the care sector remains a long-standing issue that the sector needs to address. That is why we are committed to ending long-term reliance on overseas recruitment by linking our migration, skills and labour market policies, as I mentioned. That includes improving working conditions and bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as health and care. That is why it is important that we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and are looking at the fair work agency becoming a single enforcement body. However, I recognise that there is still much more to do.

The Government will continue to monitor care worker access to the immigration system and act to stop exploitation in the care sector. We do not plan to make any changes to the immigration system at this time, but we will act if needed.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing this valuable debate, and all those who have spoken. There is no doubt about the important role that health and care staff, and the sector in which they work, play in all our constituencies in supporting communities. This is a matter about which Members on both sides of the House care passionately, as has been demonstrated today. I assure Members that we will reflect carefully on this debate and on the points that have been raised. We will continue to do all we can to support those in our health and care sector and to ensure their safety.

Family and Work Visas

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate. There has been thoughtful consideration of the issues by Members from across the House. I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady did and how she helped her community in August, in those very difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed. I will seek to address all the points raised, but I hope that Members will understand that that may be difficult in the time that I have. I will certainly come back in writing if there are outstanding points.

I will deal briefly with a few of the points raised before I go into more detail in my remarks on the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down. Some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) were reflected by others in terms of the quality of caseworking and the service received. As Members of Parliament, we have all experienced those cases and circumstances, so I am glad that the issue he raised has been resolved. Where there are any issues or concerns about whether the system is being fair and how cases are being dealt with, please write to me on those matters. We will certainly look at them in a way that also enables us to learn from what could be happening better and implement those systems.

The point about public confidence raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about immigration is important, but it comes back to the point raised more broadly about having an immigration system that is fair, humane, transparent and compliant with the law, including international law. I am keen to make the broader point that it is important that we continue to have dialogue across the House on matters such as immigration, which need and want a lot of cross-party support to deal with the challenges. That is in the interest of our economy and of fairness, but is also important for our security, so we need to have open and transparent debate on such matters and take the input from colleagues across the House.

I will come back to other points that have been raised during the debate, but on net migration and some of the changes being made, I want to make it clear that the Government recognise and value the contribution of workers from overseas to our economy and our public services, including our NHS, and they would not function without them. The point has been made, and we are very clear, that the immigration system needs to be properly managed and controlled—and that is important for public confidence too.

We are clear that net migration and reliance on overseas recruitment need to come down, and in addition to bringing down levels of overall net migration, our approach will also help ensure that there are better and higher-paid jobs for those who are already resident in the UK. In April 2024, the previous Government introduced a package of changes aimed at reducing overall levels of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. Those changes included requiring any employer in England wishing to recruit international care workers or senior care workers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and to carry out regulated activity. They also included removing the ability for care workers and senior workers to apply with dependents. The package also replaced the previous shortage occupation list with the immigration salary list.

The Home Secretary confirmed in July that the Government are retaining those changes. We acknowledge the concerns raised and welcome debates such as this one. I also think it is important, in response to some of the issues, that we lay out where we are going further and taking a different approach. We have established a new framework that will link the Migration Advisory Committee’s work with the newly formed Skills England and skills bodies across the UK, as well as the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Department for Work and Pensions, to support a more coherent approach to migration, skills and labour market issues.

I will make a broad point on the issue raised about particular routes and the appendix for domestic abuse. It is extremely important for Members across the House to ensure that we are tackling abuse on any routes. On what is an important safeguard in the system, we are clear that there has to be a high threshold of evidence and that we take steps to tackle abuse wherever we detect that and wherever that occurs. That is extremely important and a clear approach across the Home Office.

On salary requirements, for too long, immigration has been used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market issues in the UK. The salary requirements that were raised in the spring related to the median salary for occupations, ensuring people continue to be paid at a higher rate than many in the occupation. That, along with the immigration skills charge, are designed to ensure that employers look first at the resident labour market before looking at employing an international worker.

Points about the threshold were raised, and I will come back on a couple of points. For those new to the route since 4 April 2024, who must be paid £38,700 per year or the going rate for their occupation—whichever is higher—the salary floor can be reduced to just over £30,000, depending on tradeable points such as discounts for new entrants. There is some flexibility. Indeed, for those extending visas in this route or working in healthcare or education, who must be paid £29,000 per year or the going rate for their occupation, again, the salary floor can be lowered for roles on the immigration salary list. Those roles in healthcare and education are based on nationally set pay scales or by using tradeable points.

It is important to say that immigration remains a reserved matter, and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK can complicate the immigration system, harm its integrity and cause difficulty for employers, who need the flexibility to deploy their staff to other parts of the UK. The independent and expert Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly recommended that we should not operate different salary thresholds for different regions or nations across the UK.

I am aware of the concerns from the fishing industry about labour shortages. In the interests of time, I will just say that I am looking forward to meeting my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am certainly happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this too. On the Afghan schemes, I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but I am very pleased that we were able to open that scheme and see the positive response to it.

Finally, I will speak to family immigration rules. As colleagues will be aware, on 10 September the Home Secretary paused any further increases to the minimum incomes requirement and commissioned the MAC to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. This review will ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future changes to the minimum income requirement. We expect that conducting a full review of the financial requirements will take approximately nine months. I urge hon. Members to provide views and evidence in response to the MAC’s call for evidence, because I am sure we can all agree that a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that it can make effective recommendations and that policy is informed by evidence.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts.

The draft order will introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Before I explain the services, I will provide the Committee with some background on the Home Office’s fee structure.

In order for the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets a maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are then set in separate secondary legislation, the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.

Fees for the services we seek to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, which include family, skilled worker, settlement and student, where the requirements of that route require an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level, or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. An applicant can demonstrate in a number of ways their proficiency in the English language, oneof which is to use an academic qualification obtained in English awarded by an educational establishment outside the UK.

Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, those must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd is our third-party supplier, which provides those services through a concession contract with the Home Office. It has been providing the services for more than a decade. This is not a new requirement being introduced for applicants on the work, study and nationality routes. The requirement for applicants to use those services has been specified in the immigration rules since 2008.

Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through its website and pay the appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment, unless the applicant opts for an optional fast-track service, and about 30 working days for the qualification equivalency assessment. The use of the assessment is not limited to the Home Office and the visa application.

The maximum fee we are setting in the draft order for the qualification equivalency and the English language proficiency assessment is being set at £400. That will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at their current levels, which are £140 for the English language assessment and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximums above that level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing the services.

I will now turn to the question of why the Home Office is bringing forward legislation to regulate the fees now, when they are already being charged and where neither the nature of the service itself nor the requirements in the immigration rules have changed. In the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, however, the Department identified that the fees should have already been regulated due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified that fact, the Department sought to legislate at the earliest opportunity; legislation had originally been considered for the summer, but was postponed due to the general election. That is why we are working to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing in future.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the explanatory memorandum that was published alongside this order. In its report published on 10 October, the Committee raised concerns that the explanatory memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement of why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the importance of transparency in the Department’s interactions with Parliament, including in the explanatory memorandums that it lays alongside legislation. I also recognise the Committee’s view that a fuller explanation of the context of the legislation and the associated issue was required in this case, including the status of and approach to fees charged prior to the appropriate regulations’ being brought into force.

As I set out in my response to the correspondence from the Committee on 15 October, in which I responded in some detail, some of which we are covering in my speech today, the treatment of those previously charged fees is also subject to a range of complex and ongoing considerations, which makes the position fundamentally uncertain at this stage. It includes exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.

Although I am not yet in a position to confirm the specific approach to be taken on this issue, the options under consideration have the potential to impact fundamentally the bearing of the previously charged fees. Given that uncertainty, I did not consider that it would be appropriate or helpful to go into further detail on this point in the explanatory memorandum, which is otherwise clear on the necessity of laying legislation to put the fees on a statutory footing and the rationale for the specific provisions being made.

I will, however, emphasise again that I take the Department’s responsibilities in respect of parliamentary transparency seriously, and assure hon. Members that we are taking forward those considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority. It is important to note that all fees paid were on receipt of services that were also received.

Finally, I would like to be clear that although the purpose of the order is to put the fees on a statutory footing, it is the first of two statutory instruments that need to be laid to ensure that future fees are charged for these services with the appropriate legislation in place. Our intention is, subject to the approval of this order by the House, to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in December that will set fee levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

It may be more helpful for me to write to the shadow Minister on a number of his questions. However, I thank him for his constructive response in that this issue pre-dated the general election, and, for clarity, it is important that we move forward in the way that has been proposed.

It is important to say that, as I have outlined, we are still considering the best approach to take in relation to legislation or other responses to the issue retrospectively. As a result, it is a bit more challenging to announce a timetable for legislation when there is still an important process to go through, but I am happy to keep the shadow Minister informed—in writing, if need be.

It is worth saying a couple of points in response to the shadow Minister. Over the lifespan of this order, immigration fees will be kept under review and will be updated within the parameters that we have set. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by the House, and will be accompanied by an economic assessment. It is helpful to remind Members that this order will not put fees for the services on a statutory footing; it is the first of two pieces of required secondary legislation, the second being the amendment to the 2018 regulations that we expect to lay in December, subject to Parliament’s approving this order. The regulations will set the fees for immigration and nationality-related services provided by Ecctis at the level that customers are currently charged.

Question put and agreed to.

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate, which has given rise to powerful speeches by hon. Members from all parties.

Members have spoken up for their constituents and about their experiences and I will try to address as many of the points made as possible. Many issues were covered, whether that was the BNO visa route, security issues at home and in Hong Kong, pensions, home university fees, democratic freedoms, police stations and more.

I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for their contributions. The issue has had cross-party support in the past, and I am sure we will continue to work in that spirit in support of Hongkongers in the UK and those who may come here in the future.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will recognise that I may not be able to address all the issues raised today. Some of these complex matters need cross-departmental work, whether that is with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the DFE. I hope that I will cover most of the issues in my comments today, but I assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we will look at all the issues raised. I also pay tribute to the work of Hong Kong Watch and others in sharing their experience and research.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will be aware, the Government are deeply committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I think I speak for all of us when I say that Hongkongers have become an integral part of our economy and local communities, and make fantastic contributions to our national life.

I will speak first about the Hong Kong BNO visa route. The route was established in 2021 in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong, which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral responsibility for and commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Since its launch, more than 209,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK. Those Hongkongers are free to live, work and study in virtually any capacity on a pathway to British citizenship. I am sure we will welcome many more Hongkongers to the UK in future so that they can also build a new life for themselves here.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I asked about students across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England, as well—the Minister may be coming to it, but if she is not, I hope she will. I underlined that there is a clear issue relating to students from Hong Kong having the same opportunities as those who are born here. I urge the Minister to give us an answer on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and will come on to that point.

I will deal first with questions around the expansion of the BNO route, in particular to people born between 1979 and 1997. A number of Members have suggested that the BNO route should be expanded to include those who were children at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997 but whose parents did not register them for BNO status. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic commitment to those who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status, and we continue to uphold those commitments. Those not eligible for the BNO route need to consider other available UK immigration routes, for example as a student, graduate or skilled worker. I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to make any policy commitments in this forum, but I want to give assurances that I will take their comments away and consider the points that have been raised today.

I will also address the point about criminality. The standard immigration rules on criminality and other adverse behaviours apply to applications through the BNO route. However, all applications are carefully assessed against the latest country information, and guidance for caseworkers provides flexibility to ensure that overseas convictions for offences—particularly those not recognised in the UK—do not result in the automatic refusal of an application. I am aware of the concerns of those applying through the BNO route, and of the risk of their being refused on suitability grounds because of a conviction for what I think we can describe as politically motivated or trumped-up criminal charges in Hong Kong. I assure hon. Members that I am keeping the issue under review.

On the question of access to services, I thank hon. Members for their comments about the Government’s welcome programme, which we have remained committed to and which is now entering its fourth year of funding. That very important programme enables Hongkongers to access support on a range of issues, including employment, education, housing and the English language. It helps them seek employment, build skills and learn more about life in the UK so they can play a bigger part in their local communities.

As the shadow Minister said, there is currently £1 million of funding for voluntary and community-sector organisations to deliver projects focused on employability and mental health and wellbeing. The Growth Company has been funded to deliver the Jobs for Hongkongers initiative, which will help BNOs in England find employment. I am aware of other good examples. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) talked about a scheme, and I would be interested to hear more about how those local initiatives are working.

International fees are a concern for those on the BNO route, who can study and work in virtually any capacity. Generally, to be eligible for student support, home fee status and fee caps, a student must have settled status in the UK, and ordinarily they must have been resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of their course. The majority of BNO status holders will be able to qualify for home fee status and student finance once they have obtained settlement in the UK, subject to meeting the normal eligibility requirements. The eligibility criteria apply to all students, except persons granted international protection by the Home Office, but I have heard what hon. Members have said today.

On the Mandatory Provident Fund, hon. Members raised the very serious matter of the estimated £3 billion of funds alleged to have been frozen. We know that individuals who have chosen to take up the BNO visa route have difficulty drawing down early their pensions held in the Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund. Although documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early are a matter for the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has raised the issue directly with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. We have urged them to facilitate the early drawdown of funds, as is the case for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently, and we have made it clear that such discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable. I will certainly keep that under review.

On security, we take the protection of Hongkongers’ rights, freedoms and safety in the UK very seriously, and we continue to assess potential threats in the UK. We work closely across Government, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement bodies, to protect persons identified as being at risk and ensure the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. I want to be clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and the other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. We will challenge where we must to protect our national security and values. We are also working to improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses through an audit of the UK’s relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor.

It is also worth saying in response to the cyber-security issues that have been raised that the National Security Act 2023 gives the police new powers to protect the public from these malign threats, including those actions that amount to transnational repression—I take the point about the need for a clear definition. The Act brings together vital new measures to protect the UK’s national security, creating a whole suite of measures to enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern state threats.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time and I want to make a couple of final points before wrapping up.

A concern was raised about whether there were plans to shut down the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, but its status is enshrined in primary legislation and there are no plans to change that framework.

On Jimmy Lai, we continue to call on Hong Kong authorities to immediately release British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case, as has been mentioned by the Prime Minister this week, is a priority for the Government. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s case in his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in July. We continue to raise his case. UK diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong continue to attend his court proceedings on a regular basis and will continue to do so when the trial resumes in November. We are deeply concerned about the allegations about his treatment in prison and have sought reassurances on appropriate medical treatment.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been an incredibly important, thoughtful and well-informed debate. It is important that we take this opportunity to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to the people of Hong Kong and to the BNO route, which provides long-term safety and stability for Hongkongers in the UK.

School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on her Bill and her speech. I think we all agree that the current poor attendance constitutes a crisis that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Earlier this year, Labour tabled an Opposition day motion containing a range of possible ways to address the problem, but it is unfortunate that the long-term plan to deal with the school attendance crisis was voted down by Conservatives. Labour supports the Bill but, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged, it is a first step and not a magic wand. She is right to lay out the impact of absence on attainment, why we need to be concerned about that and the long-term impact of absence on children’s opportunity. It is important that our systems all work together to support children to stay in school, which is why we welcome clause 1, which introduces a duty on local authorities and clarifies their role in promoting regular attendance and reducing absence. Clause 2 is also important, as it includes particulars that schools must include in their attendance policies, with guidance on how they should be issued and communicated to parents. The measures are welcome and I hope that they will have a positive impact on the situation in our schools. I pay tribute to the think-tanks and mothers who have been involved in many discussions on how we tackle this issue across the House.

The right hon. Lady also mentioned some ways in which there could be variations in the school holidays, which could support greater attendance where holidays may be part of the challenge. In my constituency, I have talked to schools about the variation they have had, with two weeks for an extended half-term in autumn and one week less in summer, which they say has had a positive impact on engagement and support for learning.

Proper interventions are vital to get children back into the classroom. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, the figures are stark. Last year, under this Government, 21.2% of children were persistently absent from school. That is more than one in five, and double the figure just six years earlier. The number of children missing half their lessons has rocketed, too. In my local authority of Hounslow, it has more than doubled in just six years. Other areas have even higher numbers. How can we properly set up a child for the future if they are missing every other lesson in school?

The Labour party firmly believes that every child matters and that every day at school matters. Fixed-penalty notices for school absence must be a part of the system, but they are not the answer alone. There is a view, which the right hon. Lady may have, on guidance in relation to penalties where children may be undergoing assessments for education, health and care plans, but it is important that we look at the wider support. That is why we in the Labour party have set out a long-term plan that looks in the round at the issues causing absence and persistent absence, including supporting schools with the recruitment, which we have announced and committed to, of 6,500 new teachers. We will roll out free breakfast clubs in every primary school. Evidence shows that they improve children’s learning and development, and they have a positive impact on attendance and behaviour.

It is also vital to address the mental health crisis that our children are facing. Mental ill health is a key barrier to learning and attendance, yet children are remaining on long child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists, unable to access the support they need. The waiting list for assessment is over two years in many instances. We would recruit thousands of new staff to bring down those waiting lists and put specialist mental health professionals in schools and community hubs, so that children can get the help they need, solving problems before they get worse.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her support for further interventions to support children and young people facing mental health difficulties. It is an issue raised frequently in many MPs’ surgeries, including in mine, so I am very grateful for her support in this important area.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The broader point he is also making is that schools must have that support, because it is a part of how they can tackle absence in schools. That is why we need to tackle this issue head-on and not let it spiral further out of control.

Children are not engaging with the curriculum and assessment system, which has been described to us —I also speak on behalf of the shadow schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—as “joyless” and “narrow”. The UK now has the second lowest average life satisfaction of 15-year-olds in the OECD. Opportunities for music, art, sport and drama, as well as for discussion and debate, are often squeezed. Our curriculum and assessment review would look at delivering a broad curriculum that prepares children for the future, reflecting children’s desire for learning, as well as reflecting issues and diversity in our society.

Children’s early speech and language development has also suffered over the past few years, and covid contributed other stresses and anxieties. Getting it right at an early stage will lead to better engagement throughout school life. We would equip primary schools with funds to deliver evidence-based early language interventions. Finally, we would introduce a “children not in school” register to ensure that children who are not being taught in a school environment do not fall through the gaps.

Today’s Bill is extremely important and I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. I wish it well as it moves through the other place, but it is important to acknowledge that it shines a spotlight on the Government’s lack of action to deal with the crisis in our schools. Significantly, that was highlighted by Sir Kevan Collins when he resigned as education recovery commissioner in 2021. In describing the Government’s catch-up plan as “feeble”, he highlighted how there was not the intervention that we need to secure our children’s future effectively. That is why we need much more urgent action from Ministers on how they intend to tackle this problem. Tinkering around the edges simply will not do. We need a proper long-term plan, and if the Government will not deliver it, despite the right hon. Lady’s best efforts, the next Labour Government will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The truth is that not only have apprenticeship starts plummeted since 2017, but new data shows that the overall achievement rate has dropped since 2020, with level 2 apprenticeships hit hardest. Almost half of apprentices do not complete their courses, which is simply not good enough. Employers are calling out for reform, but this Government have their head in the sand. Is this not yet more evidence that, far from tackling barriers to opportunity and boosting Britain’s skills, the Government are failing our young people and our businesses, and that only Labour has a plan to turn this around?

[Luke Hall]

We have made apprenticeships more rigorous. They are now more credible. They are designed by employers and have proper robust assessments. The only plan Labour has, without more funding, is to cut the number of apprenticeship starts in our country by 60%. Obviously, the hon. Member missed the figures published last week, which showed a 2.5% increase in level 2 attainment rates. We are delivering high-quality standards with more off-the-job training and that should be welcomed across the House.