Resettlement of Ukrainians: Coatbridge

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) for securing this important Adjournment debate on the issue of displaced Ukrainians here in the UK, and the resettlement of Ukrainians in his constituency. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for her impassioned speech highlighting the culture of Ukrainians, the work done and effort made to integrate the community, and the contribution that Ukrainians make in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill is a dedicated supporter of those Ukrainians who have found sanctuary in his constituency. I thank all hon. Members here who have made significant contributions, showing that this is the story of not just one constituency, but many of our constituencies across the country. I recognise the work of North Lanarkshire council, which responded to the call from the UK and Scottish Governments to extend the hand of support to those Ukrainians who were fleeing and coming here in their time of need. I also recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done as a councillor over a number of years, leading on many programmes and being a leading voice on this issue.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, last month the Ukrainian permission extension scheme came into force, offering a further 18 months in the UK to our Ukrainian friends. Will she shed some light on the situation facing those Ukrainian guests who seek to enter further education, perhaps for three years, but who are unable to do so because they only have an 18 month extension to their visa?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will cover that when I come to my points on the UPE scheme.

I pay particular regard to the efforts and determination that teams in North Lanarkshire have shown and to their support for Ukrainian families seeking sanctuary. We heard about the rapid refurbishment of properties and how Ukrainian families have been able to find good accommodation and be supported to establish themselves and integrate into the community. We have seen in all our constituencies—indeed, I saw it myself when I came to Scotland last month—the support given to children to settle in schools and nurseries and how they have been welcomed in our communities.

I also recognise the support given to help Ukrainian families to seek employment, be more self-sufficient and extend their contribution to our society. There are a number of initiatives in the areas of culture, art, dance and so on, all of which are important in staying connected with Ukraine, but are also important—particularly for children and families—for connecting with the wider community and ensuring that a sense of diversity is truly appreciated. I thank all my hon. Friends and all hon. Members for their support for Ukrainians in their constituencies and for their stability and certainty in the UK.

A number of issues have been raised. I will broadly say that we engage regularly with the Ukrainian community and its representatives. As well as meeting members of the Ukrainian community in Scotland last month, when it was very valuable to hear of their experiences in different parts of the country directly, I attended the service at the Ukrainian Catholic church in London to commemorate the third anniversary of the full-scale, horrific and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. I assure the House that the Government stand in solidarity, as I know we all do, with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people against Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and barbaric war. Along with our allies, we remain unwavering and united in our support for Ukraine’s defence of its freedoms and pursuit of peace and justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill also raised the horror of children being abducted.

To demonstrate our continued commitment to and support for Ukraine, earlier this year the Government, led by the Prime Minister, signed the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership agreement, laying the foundations for closer collaboration and co-operation between our two countries. The partnership seeks to ensure an enduring alliance for life beyond this conflict, covering economic and trade co-operation, investment in energy and infrastructure, and cultural ties, including the twinning of British and Ukrainian schools. That builds on the really important work that is going on and the relationship being built between British and Ukrainian children both here and in Ukraine, which will be important for that relationship in future years.

Thanks to the immense generosity of the British people, we have offered or extended temporary sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families here in the UK through the bespoke Ukraine visa schemes.

The schemes have provided much-needed sanctuary to our Ukrainian friends for the past few years. We continue to do that, and the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme remains open. The Ukraine schemes provide an initial period of three years’ permission to stay in the UK, recognising the inherent uncertainty of the conflict. Understandably, as time has passed, there has been a need to provide further certainty to those who have come to the UK. That is why in February the Government launched the new Ukraine permission extension scheme, which provides a further 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK and a continuation of rights to work, to study and to access benefits. Section 3C leave is applied from when an application is successfully submitted.

We want to make sure that students can complete their studies. I know that there have been questions about how that is implemented, and I can certainly share some information about whether we can make that a bit easier, beyond the support already in place. We are working with universities and others on this, including whether support is sufficient or whether we need to do anything differently. The launch of the scheme demonstrates our continued support of Ukrainians here in the UK, and the offer of further permission to stay, along with the continuation of the same rights and benefits, provides vital certainty and security.

Members have raised points about settlement. As I have said, it is a tribute to the British people and the leadership of Governments and Members across the House that we have been able to see so many Ukrainians here in the UK, able to support themselves and their families through incredibly difficult circumstances and living their lives independently. I have heard the matters raised by Members, and the Ukrainian schemes have always sought to provide temporary sanctuary to those displaced by the war in Ukraine. The schemes are not and have never been routes to settlement, but at its heart that reflects the wishes of the Ukrainian Government for the future return of their citizens. The importance of that cannot be overstated. There are millions more displaced Ukrainians in Europe and beyond, particularly women and children, and as events in Ukraine develop, our support remains steadfast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill can be assured that we continue to keep the Ukraine schemes under review to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of Ukrainians. In closing, I thank him again for securing this Adjournment debate and allowing important contributions from Members to be heard.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill: Public Consultation

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

This Government are committed to ensuring that equality and opportunity are at the heart of our programme for national renewal. Our plan for change sets out the ambitious—but achievable—milestones we aim to reach by the end of this Parliament. The work we are doing will improve the lives of working people and strengthen our country.

The manifesto and King’s Speech last July announced our intention to legislate to deliver mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for larger employers. These measures will help employers identify and tackle pay disparities across their workforces, remove barriers to opportunity for ethnic minority and disabled staff and support our plan for change in driving up household income for all.

Today we are launching a public consultation in support of this. Responses to the consultation will help shape the pay gap reporting measures that we will include in the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, to be published later in this Session.

We are particularly interested to hear from those who will be impacted by these proposals, including employers, representative bodies, trade unions, race and disability stakeholders, ethnic minority and disabled people, and disabled people’s organisations.

We are considering what other measures the draft Bill could incorporate, including through a call for evidence which will be published separately. The call for evidence will include consideration of how we make the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people.

We are also announcing today that we are establishing a race equality engagement group to help us develop further measures to tackle race inequality. This group, which will be chaired by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, will enable us to work closely with communities and stakeholders to find out what matters most to them.

A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on gov.uk.

[HCWS530]

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off, or switched to silent mode? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the Committee Room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct. I also remind Opposition Members that, if one of your new clauses has already been debated and you wish to press it to a Division when it is reached on the amendment paper, you should please let me know in advance.

Clause 51

Validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dame Siobhain, and to contribute to Bill Committee proceedings on this important piece of legislation.

I will briefly state the purpose and effect of the clause before I make some more detailed remarks. The purpose of the clause is to ensure retrospective power for the charging of fees currently provided on behalf of the Home Office and the Department for Education in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK from any time to the point at which the Bill comes into force. The effect of the clause is that fees charged by, or under, arrangements with the Secretary of State in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK will have been charged lawfully.

I will now lay out how this situation came about. In spring 2024, under the previous Administration, an issue was identified with the legal arrangements to charge fees for three services provided by a third-party supplier on behalf of the Home Office and the DFE. Those are the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, the Department for Education’s UK European network of information centres services, and the Department for Education’s non-UK early years qualifications recognition service. A statutory basis for those fees has not been in place for a part, or the whole, of the period of their being charged. Although we do not have an exact date from which that may have run, the estimate is from around 2008 to the present day.

Regulations have been made for the charging of services recently for the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, and are being made for the Department for Education’s UK ENIC services. The fee for the non-UK early years qualifications recognition service was removed. We are bringing forward the clause to ensure that fees charged before the Bill comes into force are lawful.

We recognise that retrospective legislation should be used with caution, however, we consider that there are important reasons for it in this case, and indeed, that it was assumed that there was a legal basis for those fees in the past. In considering whether retrospective legislation is the right approach, it is important to be clear that customers who paid a fee received a service that they were able to use as part of, for example, a visa or nationality application, or to understand the comparability of qualifications to support access to education or work.

Other options, such as repaying fees, would require placing a considerable and unfair financial burden on UK taxpayers, who have not, on the whole, directly benefited financially from income generated by these services. That is why we believe that this measure is the right course of action to ensure that there is no doubt about the charges being lawful while protecting taxpayer money and Government resource. I repeat the fundamental point that a service was received for the fee that was paid.

It is important to make sure that we learn lessons and ensure that that situation does not happen again. Both Departments now have robust guidance and processes in place to support policy leads where legislative powers are needed to support the charging of fees in relation to the provision of public services.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Clause 51 details the validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications. We support this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly have considered those issues. The tweak with the Isle of Man relates to a technicality that was discovered after the Bill was drafted. The two other amendments, which extend certain provisions to the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey respectively, were added after work was done between our Parliament and those legislatures to ensure that they were happy for that extension and wanted a permissive extension clause to be added. That is what the amendments do.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

[Seema Malhotra]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 55, page 56, line 28, after “39” insert “ and (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc)”.

This amendment to the extent clause is consequential on NC31.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 25.

New clause 31—EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc—

“(1) For the purposes of this section ‘relevant citizens’ rights’ means the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which—

(a) are recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 7A or 7B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and

(b) are derived from—

(i) Title 2 of Part 2 of the withdrawal agreement or Title 1 or 4 of Part 2 of that agreement so far as relating to Title 2 of that Part,

(ii) Title 2 of Part 2 of the EEA EFTA separation agreement or Title 1 or 4 of Part 2 of that agreement so far as relating to Title 2 of that Part, or

(iii) Article 4(2), 7 or 8 or Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 2 of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement or Title 1 of Part 2 of that agreement so far as relating to Chapter 1 of Title 2 of that Part.

(2) Subsection (5) applies to a person (‘P’) where—

(a) P has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom granted by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules,

(b) the leave was granted to P on the basis of requirements which included that P is a relevant national or is (or was) a family member of a person who is (or was) a relevant national,

(c) each of the requirements on the basis of which P’s leave was granted was in fact met,

(d) either—

(i) in a case where P’s leave was not granted on the basis that P is (or was) a joining family member of a relevant sponsor, P was resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands immediately before the end of the implementation period, or

(ii) in a case where P’s leave was granted on the basis that P is (or was) a joining family member of a relevant sponsor, the relevant sponsor was resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands immediately before the end of the implementation period, and

(e) the residency mentioned in paragraph (d) was not relevant residency.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) a person is to be treated as a family member of another person if they are treated as the family member of that person by residence scheme immigration rules;

(b) ‘joining family member’ and ‘relevant sponsor’ have the same meaning as in residence scheme immigration rules;

(c) a person is to be treated as resident in the United Kingdom or the Islands immediately before the end of the implementation period even if they were temporarily absent from the United Kingdom or the Islands at that time if their absence was permitted for the purposes of establishing or maintaining eligibility for leave under residence scheme immigration rules;

(d) ‘relevant national’ means a national of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden or Switzerland.

(4) In this section ‘relevant residency’ means—

(a) residency in accordance with Union law (within the meaning of the withdrawal agreement),

(b) residency in accordance with the EEA Agreement (within the meaning of the EEA EFTA separation agreement), or

(c) residency in accordance with the FMOPA (within the meaning of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement).

(5) Relevant citizens’ rights—

(a) are capable of accruing and applying to a person to whom this subsection applies notwithstanding that the residency mentioned in subsection (2)(d) was not relevant residency, and

(b) are to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.

(6) Every enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act) is to be read and has effect subject to subsection (5).

(7) In this section—

‘EEA EFTA separation agreement’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) of that Act);

‘enactment’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (see section 20(1) of that Act);

‘the implementation period’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (see section 1A(6) of that Act);

‘the Islands’ means the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey or the Isle of Man;

‘residence scheme immigration rules’ has the same meaning as in Part 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 17 of that Act);

‘Swiss citizens’ rights agreement’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) of that Act);

‘withdrawal agreement’ has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (see section 39(1) and (6) of that Act).”

This new clause ensures that an EEA or Swiss national or their family member who has immigration leave granted under the EU Settlement Scheme can enforce residency and other rights directly under the withdrawal (or other separation) agreement even if the person, or their family member, was not resident in the UK or the Islands in accordance with Union (or other equivalent) law at the end of the implementation period.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 56 and 57 stand part.

[Seema Malhotra]

I turn first to new clause 31, which is on EU citizens’ rights. It will confirm in law what the UK has in practice sought to do since the EU settlement scheme was established: to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the UK.

Part of this is quite complicated, so it may be useful to try to simplify it. In order to meet free movement rules, those who were here as residents from the European Union before the end of the transition period, which was the end of December 2020, needed to have been financially self-sufficient, studying or working for the previous five years. That meant that they had the rights of permanent residence in the UK. If their family members, who may have been partners or children under the age of 21, were also here before the end of December 2020, then at that point it was a bit like census day—it did not matter whether they were outside the UK; under permitted absence rules, they could have been abroad for whatever reason but coming back. The point is about the definition of meeting free movement rules. They were resident here and effectively living under EU law, so they would be eligible for rights under the EU withdrawal agreement.

The issue is a technical one. There is a cohort described as the extra cohort, rather than the true cohort. The true cohort is those who were self-sufficient, studying or working, and therefore ticked all the boxes of meeting free movement rules. But those who, for example, were not in work on 31 December—they might have lost their job, or there was some other reason why they were not technically meeting the rules—are described as the extra cohort. While they were not technically meeting those free movement rules at that moment, we moved forward with citizens’ rights after we left the European Union at the end of the transition period by treating those two cohorts as the same, as if it had been census day.

Those technicalities have meant that the withdrawal agreement rights apply completely to the true cohort, but arguably, given case law, have sometimes become a bit more complicated when applied to the extra cohort—who, as far as the UK is concerned, should be treated the same. It is important that we clarify in law that we treat the cohorts the same. At the end of December 2020 they might technically not have met all the definitions under the free movement rules, and therefore technically not have been complying with EU law, but for all intents and purposes they should still have their citizens’ rights. The source of those rights is the withdrawal agreement. New clause 31 clarifies that so that we do not have case law challenging it or defining it differently.

It was always the UK’s intention to treat those cohorts the same, but as case law has evolved it has become more difficult in practice. I thank other parliamentarians, including those in the other place, and stakeholders who have raised this issue. We want to ensure that there is clarity in law and that what we intend is actually the case. It is better all round to make the position clear. New clause 31 will mean that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the EUSS who were resident in the UK before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020—I remind the Committee that we left the EU at the end of January 2020, but had the transition period until December 2020—will be considered beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement and accordingly have rights in UK law. That is regardless of whether they belong to what I have described as the true cohort—the vast majority, who were compliant with all aspects of the free movement rules—or whether they technically did not and fell within what we have called the extra cohort. The new clause means that they all be able to rely directly on the rights in the withdrawal agreement for as long as they hold EUSS status. I am sure that, like all of us, Dame Siobhain, you consider it important for your constituents to have clarity about their rights in law.

The Government take citizens’ rights very seriously, and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement are properly implemented in the UK and the EU. The EUSS opened on 30 March 2019, when the withdrawal agreement was still in draft; some of us still remember those slightly heady days and late nights. From the start, the UK’s approach has been that, as the withdrawal agreement requires, all EU citizens resident in the UK before the cut-off date, which proved in the end to be the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, are eligible for the EUSS, irrespective of whether they resided in the UK in accordance with EU law at the end of 2020. The EUSS, our scheme in the UK, does not therefore assess whether, at the end of the transition period, the EU citizen was exercising treaty rights in the UK by being a worker, self-employed, a student or self-sufficient, or whether they had an EU law right of permanent residence here, possibly on the basis of having spent five years working here.

The approach we took was fair and ensured a smooth transition. It was a priority for the whole of Parliament during that time that EU citizens with a right to be in the UK and British citizens in the EU did not have their lives disrupted by the consequences of Brexit. That approach has greatly simplified the operation of the EUSS, under which 5.7 million people now have status. It also simplified it for applicants and caseworkers. That is important, because we want consistency and accuracy in the processing of cases.

Just by virtue of these technicalities, two cohorts of EU citizens and their family members have status under the EUSS: the true cohort, who derived their rights from the withdrawal agreement, and the extra cohort, who were not within scope of the withdrawal agreement for technical reasons and derived their rights from domestic legislation. The UK has sought as a matter of practice to treat those cohorts the same in how we have interpreted and treated those cases in relation to their status in the UK, but as case law has evolved, very small technical points have had consequences where rights have been derived technically from the withdrawal agreement or domestic legislation.

The new clause will make the position clear in law. It removes the distinction in UK law between true and extra cohorts, making it clear that both are to be treated as if they were in scope of the withdrawal agreement at the end of the transition period in December 2020, meaning that they benefit from the rights contained in part 2 of the agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I want to ask one simple question: does the Minister remember the good old days, when we had freedom of movement across the continent?

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank hon. Members for those comments. I can clarify the numbers that I have; if there is anything that we have not covered, I can make sure that Members are written to. I mentioned that 5.7 million people now have status, but 4.1 million have settled status. We have met the requirements for that. On why the change has happened now, the main point is that the issue has been ongoing and we had to work out the best time to bring it forward. We have now been able to bring it forward as a new clause in the Bill.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

On the timing of this measure, does our experience not show us that it is better to do these things in advance rather than later, when migrants come out of the woodwork having been let down? That happened with the Windrush experience.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would probably put it slightly differently. This is an example of where we are being fair and generous—going beyond what was technically within the withdrawal agreement—because that is right for EU citizens who were here. In line with the approach that we took across the whole of Government, we should make sure that there is a smooth transition and security for EU residents here in the UK and also for British citizens in the EU.

I spent four years on the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union—I was a veteran, from the first meeting to the last. Early on, citizens’ rights were important and central. Policy has sometimes become a bit more difficult because of case law—we cannot always predict where that ends up—so it is right that we look at where we can make the position clear in law, which is what we are doing today.

[Katie Lam]

Just to follow up on the numbers and check that I have understood this correctly, the Minister said that 5.7 million people have a grant of status, of whom 4.1 million people have settled status; presumably the remainder have pre-settled status. Are those numbers entirely the true cohort? Are the numbers of people that we are talking about today extra to that?

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Lady asks a good question. The extra cohort is a minority in that. There are estimates. I am not sure whether I have here the estimate of the specific number of the extra cohort, which it is quite difficult to have an exact number on. But I will make sure that she is written to about the best estimate or the best way in which we can consider it. The extra cohort is a minority, but it is important that we clarify that their rights, too, are derived from the withdrawal agreement.

[Katie Lam]

I thank the Minister; that is very helpful. As I understand it, settled status under the EU settlement scheme entitles individuals to welfare payments, social housing, surcharge-free NHS care and more. Of those people who have been granted settled status, is the Minister or anyone in the Home Office—or indeed anyone anywhere in Government—making an assessment of how many of those individuals are net contributors to the public purse, and how many are a net cost to Britain’s taxpayers?

[Seema Malhotra]

I will just make this point first. In a sense, the new clause will have a very limited impact on access to benefits for those with pre-settled status, or limited leave, under the EUSS. To access income-related benefits such as universal credit, they would be required to evidence relevant qualifying activity, such as current or recent employment or self-employment. Those with settled status, or indefinite leave, under the EUSS already have full access to benefits where eligible.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, I know there is broader research, and there is some data but not other data, and there are different estimates, but I am sure that she will know and appreciate that the vast majority will be working. Her question is also relevant to a more general question about those who are here and have settled status: how many are working? We know that there is different research, but the vast majority are self-sufficient.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I refer the Committee back to the oral evidence that we heard at the very start of our work. Experts were asked whether they felt that the available immigration data, which could have been improved over 14 years, was robust enough for making strong assertions. Time and again, we heard from experts that it is very hard to make assessments about the net benefit or net cost of immigration flows into our country. Do the Government intend to work alongside the Migration Advisory Committee to improve the quality of immigration data so that we can make such assessments on a more robust footing?

[Seema Malhotra]

Indeed, it is important to have data that can inform policymaking and public debate. This is a separate matter to the one of those who come to work, settle and contribute to our economy and society, which I know we all want to see—that is indeed what we see in our constituencies—but it is also important that those who come through humanitarian routes are supported to access employability skills and employment, so that they can support themselves and their families. It is important that we look at how joined-up we are and to what extent that support is in place.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendments made: 23, in clause 55, page 56, line 29, after “to” insert

“any of the Channel Islands or”.

This amendment enables certain provisions of the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands.

Amendment 24, in clause 55, page 56, line 31, after second “to” insert

“any of the Channel Islands or”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

This amendment enables certain amendments and repeals by the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

Commencement

Amendment made: 25, in clause 56, page 57, line 15, after “35” insert

“, (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc)”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

This amendment to the commencement clause has the effect of bringing NC31 into force 2 months after Royal Assent.

Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 30

Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail

“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).

(2) In section 3(1)(c) (conditions which may be applied to limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom)—

(a) omit the ‘and’ at the end of sub-paragraph (iv), and

(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (v) insert—

‘(vi) an electronic monitoring condition (see Schedule 1A);

(vii) a condition requiring the person to be at a particular place between particular times, either on particular days or on any day;

(viii) a condition requiring the person to remain within a particular area;

(ix) a condition prohibiting the person from being in a particular area;

(x) such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.’

(3) Before Schedule 2 insert—

‘Schedule 1A

Electronic monitoring conditions

1 For the purposes of section 3(1)(c)(vi), an “electronic monitoring condition” means a condition requiring the person on whom it is imposed (“P”) to co-operate with such arrangements as the Secretary of State may specify for detecting and recording by electronic means one or more of the following—

(a) P’s location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place;

(b) P’s presence in a location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place;

(c) P’s absence from a location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place.

2 The arrangements may in particular—

(a) require P to wear a device;

(b) require P to make specified use of a device;

(c) require P to communicate in a specified manner and at specified times or during specified periods;

(d) involve the exercise of functions by persons other than the Secretary of State.

3 If the arrangements require P to wear, or make specified use of, a device they must—

(a) prohibit P from causing or permitting damage to, or interference with, the device, and

(b) prohibit P from taking or permitting action that would or might prevent the effective operation of the device.

4 An electronic monitoring condition may not be imposed on a person unless the person is at least 18 years old.

5 In this Schedule “specified” means specified in the arrangements.’

(4) In Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail), in paragraph 2(1) (conditions of bail), after paragraph (e) insert—

‘(ea) a condition requiring the person to be at a particular place between particular times, either on particular days or on any day;

(eb) a condition requiring the person to remain within a particular area;

(ec) a condition prohibiting the person from being in a particular area;’”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

This new clause makes provision about the conditions which can be imposed on a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or a grant of immigration bail.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I take an intervention from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, does the Minister want to contribute?

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to speak to these new clauses, and to acknowledge the genuine questions and important aspects that have been raised in the debate so far. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire and for Woking for tabling the amendments. Contributions also came from my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh and for Dover and Deal and from the Opposition.

The point I want to make on this subject is in response to both new clauses, although I recognise the slight differences. New clause 1 seeks to require a strategy, laid before Parliament, for the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK, and new clause 6 seeks to require the Secretary of State to

“make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes”.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said that he was pretty good at predicting the responses from colleagues. I gently suggest that I might say some things that he may not expect about certain aspects of the subject. That is because some parts of what we currently do have not been raised at all in the debate. They are in relation to safe and legal routes, and how they are working, outside the Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes. I want to go through those points because they are important.

I also make a broad point in relation to, in particular, the comments and the question from the hon. Member for Woking about consideration and having a conversation. The Government will, as he knows, shortly set out our approach to immigration as part of considering how we bring down net migration, tackle abuse and put more controls in the system. The system has lost public confidence. I think we all know—the Conservatives themselves have acknowledged it—that we lost control of immigration. The system was and is chaotic. It is not just a problem in relation to how people feel about an immigration system that is not fair, controlled or managed; it is about the consequences for individuals, such as asylum seekers caught up in backlogs. Their lives are on hold until their claim is considered.

It is important to return to the subject of the utter chaos that the whole system has been in, and why the Bill is important to what we are looking to do to strengthen our borders and go after the smuggling gangs, which hon. Members have mentioned. Those gangs do so much damage to the lives of migrants. They also undermine our border security and make money—millions—from putting lives at risk. It is important that we look at how we are tackling the demand. Several hon. Members made that important point. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire did not talk about going even further with what he is suggesting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I am a little surprised to see the suggestion from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire because my sense, from the rest of what he said in the debates we have had over preceding sessions, is that he would like to see less of a distinction between British people and those who come to this country as migrants. Indeed, his new clause 5, which we will debate after this, will explicitly set this out, particularly on the question of British citizenship. A scheme like the one he proposes in new clauses 3 and 4 would have the opposite effect, since any citizen of the United Kingdom can freely move between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, living and working wherever they choose, and can change the location of their home or employment without permission or notice from any authority. We can pass from one area to another without being stopped or questioned, without having to evidence who we are, where we are from and going, and if and when we might return.

A specifically Scottish visa programme would presumably only work if none of those things were the case. Whatever the details, it would surely involve people coming to Britain but promising only to live and/or work in Scotland, over and above the situations where such things are already implied by the specific conditions of their visa—like the university at which they are studying or the company employing them, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh already laid out.

How would this be evidenced, tracked or enforced? Would individuals moving from a few metres into Scotland to a few metres into England be deported? Why would this be a specialist visa programme? If our friends north of the English-Scottish border are especially keen to attract people of working age, be they migrants or not, why would this be the right solution? What steps are already being taken to attract such people, or to make it easier for them to move to or work in Scotland?

Finally, I am interested in the view of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire on why Scotland currently has within its borders so few asylum seekers within the system. Given what he has previously said, it would be interesting to understand why he thinks that the number of asylum seekers—either in hotels or in dispersed accommodation in Scotland—is less than half of what it should be, proportionate to population of the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for this important debate, Dame Siobhain. It is probably the fourth time we have discussed this matter. I want to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will be aware—perhaps this is one point I can acknowledge that he would have predicted my response—that we will not be introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy. This has also been a discussion that we have had, and a point that we have made to the Scottish Government. In my remarks, I will perhaps make a few points that will be useful for his ongoing deliberations on this issue, and suggest how he may direct them towards working with the Scottish Government on some matters that it may be useful for him to be aware of.

The key point is that we must work together to address the underlying causes of skills shortages and overseas recruitment in different parts of the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we believe net migration must come down—under the last Government, it more than trebled and reached a record high of over 900,000 in the year to June 2023. Immigration is a reserved matter, on which we work in the interest of the whole of the UK. The previous schemes that we have talked about have succeeded only in restricting movement and rights, and creating internal UK borders. Adding different rules for different locations will also increase complexity and create friction when workers move locations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will be brief, but a lot of the questions that were asked were relevant and deserve a response. First, it is not me that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh needs to debate and speak to about this; it is Scottish businesses, business organisations and the political consensus in Scotland. The hon. Member should sit down with Jackie Baillie, who raised visas as a live issue during the general election campaign. I do not know what happened to that ambition from Scottish Labour. It seems to me that it was totally slapped down by the bosses down here in the Home Office, who wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. We do not hear about it as much anymore, but it was a real ambition from Jackie Baillie and the Labour party to secure this provision for Scotland. We only need to look back at the last Labour Government to see what imagination can do and what effective Government can deliver. We had the Fresh Talent scheme—a fantastic scheme that gave us a competitive advantage when it came to university students.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Fresh Talent scheme, which allowed graduates of Scottish universities to remain and work for two years after graduation without needing a sponsoring employer. In practice, many Fresh Talent participants did not remain in Scotland and took up employment elsewhere in the UK. That is precisely the challenge we are talking about.

[The Chair]

I remind the Minister that we have a hard return at 2 o’clock, so the longer we go on, the less likely it is that anybody is going to get an opportunity for lunch.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

To quote my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), British citizenship is—or at least should be—

“a privilege to be earned not an automatic right.”

Citizenship should be available only to those who have made both a commitment and a contribution to the United Kingdom. For example, it should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost the public purse more than they contribute to it. It should also be a fundamental principle of our system that those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should never be able to become British citizens. To state something so obvious that it sounds almost silly, those who have come to this country illegally have broken the law. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are proposing that we ignore that fact.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northampton- shire just said, how can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? It seems to me outrageous, unfair and completely against what we understand to be the wishes of the public to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has broken the law when it comes to determining their character and thus whether they should become a fellow citizen of this great country.

Separately, the Conservatives feel that the timeframe the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire suggests in new clause 5 is far too short. In line with our party’s wider policy, we feel that five years is not enough time to qualify a person for indefinite leave to remain. Immigration, as we are all well aware, was at well over 1 million people a year in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and net migration was at, or is expected to be, at least 850,000 people for each of those years. If we accept that the immigration policy of the past few years was a mistake, we should make every effort to reverse the long-term consequences. That is why the Conservative party is advocating that the qualifying period for ILR should be extended to 10 years, rather than the five years in the new clause.

Finally, I return to my earlier point about Scotland, the Scottish National party and the proof of its compassion as compared with its words. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire shook his head when I was speaking about the number of asylum seekers and where they are located. The latest data released on that is for December 2024. As I read it, in Scotland, there are 1,421 asylum seekers in hotels, compared with 36,658 in the rest of the country, and 4,262 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation, compared with 61,445 across the rest of Britain.

I appreciate that that is challenging mental maths, so I will tell hon. Members that that means that Scotland houses only 5% of the asylum seekers currently accommodated by the state in this country. Scotland is underweight relative to population and dramatically underweight relative to size. Given everything that the hon. Gentleman has said that he and his party stand for, would we not expect the opposite to be true—that Scotland would be pulling its weight more, rather than less?

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in response to the debate on new clauses 5 and 13. I want to clarify a few points. There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship. In February, the Home Secretary further strengthened measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. This change applies to anyone who entered the UK illegally, or those who arrived without a required, valid entry clearance or valid electronic authorisation, having made a dangerous journey, regardless of the time that has passed since they entered the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 14 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers minimum wage on levels of net migration. It requires such publication within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

What outcome are hon. Members seeking to achieve with the new clause? What is the proposed minimum wage for carers that the Liberal Democrats would impose? Our care workers deserve fair pay. We are seeing the impact of the national insurance rise on the care sector and the organisations operating therein, who are now struggling to sustain themselves and deliver good jobs and good pay to the care workers they employ. What assessment has been done of the costs of such a minimum wage and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that this was fully funded?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am pleased to speak on new clause 14. It is unclear whether its intention is to commission a review of the impact of setting a minimum wage for new entrants or for settled workers in the care sector. I interpreted that its effect would be the Government commissioning a review into implementing a national minimum wage for workers in the social care sector. It is unclear whether it would apply to international workers or the whole labour market.

It is also unclear—I think this was the shadow Minister’s point—what the minimum wage for carers being referred to is; there are no sector-based minimum wage standards. The national living wage is currently £11.44 for people aged 21 or over. It is rising to £12.21 in April. International workers on a health and care visa are currently required to be paid £11.90.

I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report before Parliament given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis, which will show the impact of changes in inwards migration. It will not be possible for that data to show the effect of this issue on net migration, as the figures will depend on other factors such as the number of people who choose to leave the UK, which might not be a result of care worker minimum wage requirements.  It is also not clear whether the report would have to look at settled workers and other workers in the labour market as well as those who are on health and care visas.

We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of international care workers recruited for just over a year, and that is because employers have been unable to demonstrate that they have genuine vacancies that would guarantee sufficient hours to meet salary requirements. The most recently published data and statistics show that in the year ending December 2024, the number of international care workers reduced by 91%. The work that the Home Office is doing with the Department of Health and Social Care is increasing the role of regional hubs, with £16 million going into them. Regional hubs play an important role in supporting workers who may have left an employer or lost a licence to find other employment. That reduces the dependency on recruiting from abroad because we are already using those who are here on those visas and wish to work, alongside continuing to recruit home-grown talent.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not fully aware that we are introducing the first fair pay agreement to the adult social care sector, so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. The Government will engage all those who draw upon care, as well as those who provide care. We will also consult local authorities, unions and others from across the sector. Fair pay agreements will empower worker representatives, employers and others to negotiate pay, and terms and conditions, in a responsible manner. Crucially, they will help to address the long-standing issues with sustainability of resource, recruitment and retention that we all know exist in the care sector. That will address the workforce crisis in that extremely important sector and so support the delivery of high-quality care. Fair pay agreements are an important first step towards a national care service.

I hope that clarifies the Government’s position and why it will not be necessary to lay a report before Parliament—and that certainly should not be required under this legislation, which is about stopping criminal gangs in their awful trade. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause and engage in this debate in other ways.

[Mr Forster]

I am happy to take the Minister up on that suggestion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

A three-month service standard for asylum casework

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, implement a three-month service standard for asylum casework.

(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”—(Mr Forster.)

This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We know those jobs are underpaid, and that is why so few people in the general community whom the hon. Lady would class as British-born are prepared to do them. We are dependent on people coming to our shores to do those jobs, and our health service would fall apart if they all decided to leave. We depend on them, and it is unfair that they have to pay that extra and excessive charge. I hope that the Government will look at this new clause, because I think it is reasonably good and one of the few that would make a significant and practical improvement to the situation.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for Woking for tabling new clause 16, which would exempt the NHS from paying the immigration skills charge when recruiting skilled workers. I recognise that the intention is to protect the NHS and reduce the cost of recruiting those vital health and care professionals. As we all know, they do a fantastic and important job for all our constituents and families in looking after the wellbeing of people across the UK. It is worth recognising, however, that the new clause would run contrary to the Government’s position that we should reduce our reliance on international workers in all sectors of the UK economy, including the NHS.

The clue to what the immigration skills charge is for and why we have it is in the word “skills”, so removing it would send the wrong message. We would be removing an important tool to encourage employers to look first at the domestic labour market and at what more could be done to train and improve the skills of people already in the UK, rather than looking outside it and continuing our reliance on overseas trained workers to support our public services. In the light of what the immigration skills charge is for—to help and support the development of skills and, therefore, to support the growth of our skills and talent in the UK—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider and withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 20, which would introduce a so-called humanitarian travel permit. The Conservatives have previously drawn up schemes such as Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine family scheme for families seeking refuge from the war. We do not need a specific permit for people across the world to use to come to the UK, so we do not support the measure.

[Seema Malhotra]

I will keep my remarks brief, because there is some overlap between this new clause and the debate we had on safe and legal routes. New clause 20 proposes a new humanitarian travel permit. As we have mentioned, the UK has a strong history of protecting those fleeing war and persecution around the world.

I talked about the UK resettlement scheme that we run in partnership with the UNHCR. When people are assessed independently by the UNHCR and accepted as refugees, they may then be allocated to the UK under that scheme; it is then for the UK to provide visas to them in advance of their travelling to the UK, so that they can come here safely.

We previously discussed why there is no provision in the immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum, as I think the new clause seeks to provide. There are risks: we may be sympathetic to the international system that I just mentioned, which supports people fleeing very difficult and dangerous situations, but it would be difficult to consider protection claims from large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come to the UK. It is the case that, as part of how the system works internationally, those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 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 visit visa requirement on Trinidad and Tobago

We are today introducing a visa requirement on all visitors from Trinidad and Tobago. Nationals of Trinidad and Tobago 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.

Consequential to this, nationals of Trinidad and Tobago will no longer be eligible to apply for an electronic travel authorisation for travel to the UK.

There will be a six-week, visa-free transition period for those who already hold an electronic travel authorisation and confirmed bookings to the UK obtained on or before 15:00 GMT on 12 March 2025 where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 BST on 23 April 2025.

Arrangements are in place so that nationals of Trinidad and Tobago can apply for visas. We are publicising the changes so travellers are aware and can plan accordingly.

We are taking this action due to an increase in the number of Trinidad and Tobago nationals travelling to the UK for purposes other than those permitted under visitor rules. This has included a significant and sustained increase in asylum claims, which has added significantly to operational pressures at the border and resulted 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 our Commonwealth partner Trinidad and Tobago 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 to the Ukraine scheme

The Ukraine permission extension scheme (UPE) opened on 4 February 2025, and allows Ukrainians, and their eligible family members, who have been living in the UK with permission under one of the existing routes within Appendix Ukraine scheme, or outside the immigration rules in specified circumstances, to apply for a further period of 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK. The launch of UPE reflects our commitment to providing further support for Ukrainians in the UK while the conflict with Russia continues.

We are making some minor changes to UPE to extend the validity requirements further. This will include bringing in scope children under 18 who were granted leave to enter the UK outside the immigration rules so they could join or stay with their parents who already held Ukraine scheme permission. Going forward, a change to the Homes for Ukraine scheme guidance that was published on 31 January will enable eligible parents to sponsor their children to come to the UK under the Homes for Ukraine route. However, making this change to the UPE requirements now will enable children who have already been granted leave outside the rules in these circumstances to align their status with their parents by enabling them to apply to UPE when their current permission is due to expire. This will provide further reassurance and certainty about their status in the UK.

There will also be some minor drafting changes to the eligibility rules for UPE to better reflect the existing policy intention.

We are also making changes to the Homes for Ukraine (HfU) scheme, to include the “approved sponsor” requirements for eligible minors in both validity and eligibility sections of the rules. This will enable decision makers to determine applications which do not have an approved sponsor. We will also align the definition of parent across HfU and UPE, so it is consistent with the wider immigration system. In order to preserve the integrity of the broader immigration system, we will also introduce a requirement that parents who wish to be joined by their children in the UK under the HfU scheme must be lawfully resident in the UK.

Finally, changes to the immigration rules were laid in November 2024 (HC 334) to end the use of “permission to travel” (PTT) letters on the Ukraine schemes from 13 February onwards. The rules currently allow PTT arrivals to vary their permission in country within six months of their arrival. As there will be no further PTT arrivals from 13 February, no one will be able to vary their permission in this way from 13 August onwards. We are consequently making a change to the rules to remove this provision from that date, as it will no longer be required.

These changes to Appendix Ukraine scheme do not constitute a reduction of support for Ukraine and the UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

Changes relating to the EU settlement scheme (EUSS)

The EUSS enables EU, other European Economic Area (EEA) and Swiss citizens living in the UK before the end of the post-EU exit transition period at 11 pm on 31 December 2020, and their family members, to obtain the immigration status they need to continue living in the UK, consistently with the citizens’ rights agreements.

The main changes enable a non-EEA national applicant to use a UK-issued biometric residence card or permit which has expired by up to 18 months as proof of their identity and nationality; confirm that a person with a pending administrative review of an EUSS decision, who has not left the UK or has been granted entry into the UK—except on immigration bail—will not be removed from the UK; and enable an application to be refused on suitability grounds, without a deportation or exclusion order being in place, where the applicant’s conduct before the end of the transition period meets the relevant EU law public policy test applicable under the agreements.

Changes relating to care workers in the skilled worker route

The Government value the important contribution care workers from overseas make to social care services. However, too many providers have recruited care workers to the UK and failed to provide them with the work they were promised, or have subjected them to appalling exploitation. We have a duty to protect people against destitution, exploitation and modern slavery, and the best way to do so is through secure, properly paid work and employment conditions.

We are therefore making changes to address the growing pool of care workers and senior care workers in this route who no longer have sponsorship, because their sponsors have been unable to offer sufficient work and or have lost their sponsor licences.

The changes require providers to try to recruit from this pool of workers who are seeking new employment, before seeking to sponsor new recruits from other immigration routes or from overseas.

The changes do not apply to workers outside England, or where providers are seeking to sponsor someone switching from another immigration route who has already been working for them for at least three months. We will keep the geographic coverage of this requirement under close review.

Changes to the minimum salary for skilled worker visas

A routine change is being made to update the minimum salary floor from £23,200 per year, or £11.90 per hour, to £25,000 per year, or £12.82 per hour. It is standard practice to update this and other salary requirements across work visa routes each year, using the latest annual survey of hours and earnings (ASHE) data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This ensures these salary requirements continue to reflect the latest pay situation for UK workers. As the Government intend to shortly publish an immigration White Paper, the changes are being limited to only updating the minimum salary floor. This is to ensure it reflects the latest ASHE data and remains significantly above the national living wage, which is also increasing in April 2025.

Appendix ETA—exemption for British nationals (overseas)

We are removing British nationals (overseas) from the list of nationalities requiring an electronic travel authorisation (ETA) for travel to the UK.

This means that holders of a BN(O) passport will be able to travel to or transit via the UK without requiring an ETA. We will keep this exemption under review.

These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 12 March 2025. For the changes that introduce a visa requirement on Trinidad and Tobago, due to safeguarding the operation of the UK’s immigration system, those changes will come into effect at 15:00 GMT on 12 March 2025. For the changes relating to the Ukraine scheme, those changes will come into effect on various dates from 2 April 2025, as detailed in the statement of changes. All other changes will come into effect on 9 April 2025.

[HCWS515]

Draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 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 (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025.

[Seema Malhotra]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The legislation we are debating concerns two elements of our immigration system: the fees for immigration and nationality applications, and the use of biometric information. I will take each instrument in turn.

The draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order sets out immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount, or maxima, that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. I am sure Members will agree that it is prudent to keep maximas under review to ensure that the order continues to support our fees and funding objectives. The order will make several changes to the maximum fee payable, including for the electronic travel authorisation, sponsorship on work routes, naturalisation as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen, and certain nationality services.

The electronic travel authorisation maxima will increase from £15 to £16. The fee maxima that applies to sponsor a worker and for certificates of sponsorship will increase from £300 to £525. The fee maxima that applies to adult applications made to naturalise as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen will increase from £1,500 to £1,605. We are also making a number of changes to maximas for nationality-related products and services. The fees order will also remove the fee provision related to the electronic visa waiver and make a consequential amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove the fee.

The changes we propose, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will facilitate subsequent increases to relevant fees to the new maxima level, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum, which are necessary to ensure the sustainability of the migration and borders system.

The impact assessment for the fees order considered a range of economic costs and benefits of the proposed changes, of which the indirect impact on the Exchequer was one. However, this was considered alongside the estimated benefits, including the estimated revenue generated from the changes. The overall impact of the changes, if made in subsequent regulations, is uncertain, and a range of impacts has been presented. However, in the central case, the impact assessment estimates a positive overall economic impact of £203.5 million over the five-year period.

The central scenario in the impact assessment represents the best estimation of the potential policy impact if fees were to be raised to the relevant maxima. In this scenario, the direct benefits have been assessed as outweighing the more uncertain indirect costs. Further potential revenue of between £105 million and £120 million per year accruing to the Home Office from increases to the certificate of sponsorship fee are captured separately in the document as a transfer between business and the Government.

I want to make it clear that no fee levels will be changed through this order. Fee levels are amended through the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 and will be subject to approval by Parliament and accompanied by a full economic impact assessment. However, in laying this order before the House, we have sought to provide clarity to Parliament and to the public on our intention to increase certain fees when parliamentary time allows.

Let me turn to the Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The use of biometric information, in the form of facial images and fingerprints, continues to play a crucial role in our immigration system by enabling us to check and confirm the identities and immigration status of foreign nationals coming to and living in the UK. The regulations form part of the Government’s commitment to harness the power of technology to deliver several significant improvements to our immigration and border system and support our transition to a digital passenger journey from application to arrival.

The regulations provide measures to support the transition away from physical biometric immigration documents towards digital immigration status in the form of an e-visa for everyone who applies for a visa to come to the UK, including visitors; the ability to retain biometric information from people who abscond from immigration bail and become uncontactable; changes to prevent abuse of the stateless person route; and a power to enrol biometrics from all people arriving at the border and retain that information for everyone who is not a British citizen.

The roll-out of e-visas started in 2018 as part of the EU settlement scheme and has been incrementally widened to other foreign nationals coming to and staying in the UK. As of 27 February 2025, over 4 million people have successfully created a UK Visas and Immigration account to access their e-visa up to the end of January, with many more creating an account every day. In November 2024, the Home Office stopped issuing biometric residence permits and intends to stop issuing passport vignettes, or stickers, later this year. Instead, people granted permission to come and stay in the UK need to create a UKVI account to access their e-visa, which they can use to prove their status and identity in the UK.

To ensure the integrity of the e-visa system, the regulations will also require e-visa holders to maintain accurate information about themselves, including by updating their facial image. That will ensure that employers and other organisations conduct accurate checks when establishing a person’s status and identity, which helps to prevent illegal working and identity-enabled criminality. That is because, while e-visas issued to people who are settled in the UK do not expire, we still need the person to periodically update their facial image, as with UK passports and photo driving licences, which are valid for up to 10 years. The person will need to be reminded to update their facial image ahead of needing to do so. For adults, the period of time will be similar to that for passports or UK driving licences.

We need to ensure that foreign nationals who are staying in our country comply with our rules. Therefore, to reflect the new digital status, we are introducing a new, but proportionate, sanction that may be imposed on a person who refuses to adhere to any requirements in the regulations to encourage compliance. If an e-visa holder fails to update their photo in the required time, the regulations allow us to prevent them from sharing their status for third-party checks until they comply with the regulations. That will reduce the need to impose more stringent existing sanctions, such as civil penalties or curtailing or varying their immigration permission. I stress that these sanctions will apply only to those who will not comply with our requirements, not to those who cannot.

We have taken lessons from the experiences of the Windrush generation and are committed to avoiding undue burdens being placed on elderly people. We will not require people aged over 70 to update their facial image or to create an account where they hold an expired biometric residence permit but will encourage them to do so for their convenience. The proposed regulations also enable us to extend the standard fingerprint retention period beyond 15 years for those who abscond from immigration bail and seek to avoid contact with the Home Office or the police.

Statelessness presents significant challenges, which we have managed through legal frameworks and international co-operation. The previous instrument enabled some people to avoid providing their biometrics for the purposes of the biometric immigration document without any consequences. This instrument closes that gap and ensures that anyone who applies to stay in the UK because they are stateless needs to enrol their biometric information as required, or face having their application disregarded or refused.

Moving to our plan to transform the UK border, we are looking to harness innovative technologies to improve how people move through the UK’s border. Biometric information is an effective way of establishing and verifying a person’s identity. We want to build upon existing identity verification capabilities to ensure that we are building a border that can withstand future pressures efficiently, while maintaining our border security. To achieve that, we need legislation that will enable us to enrol and retain the biometric information captured at the UK border. By retaining this data, we will have a record of up-to-date facial images to support a smoother passage through the border each time the person arrives in the UK.

The instrument ensures that robust action can be taken by Border Force officers against those non-British or non-Irish citizens who wish to consciously circumvent requirements to provide biometric information at the border, by allowing Border Force to refuse or cancel permission to enter the UK. We know that some of our Five Eyes partners, such as the USA and Australia, are developing automated border systems based on biometric information to improve passenger flow and maintain security. This instrument will allow us to keep pace.

The enhanced facial comparison capability provided through these regulations will also allow us to develop further new identity verification technologies. That includes trialling contactless travel at the UK border, which would enable a person to enter the UK without routinely producing their passport—something you might enjoy doing, Sir Roger—at the border, but without compromising our security. We aim to do that by using the information we have from our universal permission to travel, e-visa and electronic travel authorisation, coupled with advance passenger information, which will allow us to know more about who is travelling to the UK prior to their departure. That will enable us to conduct more checks prior to their arrival at the border. We will be able to match the facial image of a person arriving at the UK border with the biometric information we already hold from either their passport or immigration application. To reassure the Committee, these regulations do not change the requirement for all arrivals to the UK to travel on a valid passport.

Our future vision for the UK border is rightly ambitious. Equally, it is important that we proceed cautiously with any new technology introduced at the border. We must make sure that we get this right. That is why our first step will be to test contactless travel on British citizens only later this year. We will only move to further implementation if that is a success. I can also reassure the Committee that this instrument does not commit the Government to introduce any new technology; instead, it bolsters our ability to enrol and retain biometric information at the border and paves the way for trialling of contactless travel.

I realise that these are both somewhat technical areas. I thank Members for their consideration of our fees order, which will ensure that our migration and borders system is sustainably funded, and our biometrics regulations, which will help to facilitate our ambitious journey towards a biometrically enabled digital immigration system. I commend the order and the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the shadow Ministers for their contributions, as well their overall support for the measures in these statutory instruments. They ensure the robustness, efficiency and security of our systems, while future-proofing them and keeping us in line with our competitors. I had an experience last year in Australia where I ended up walking straight through immigration without anyone checking my passport, and I had no idea what had happened. Having gone through, I was out the other side hunting for someone to give my documents to, but I then realised that I had come through an automated system, so my face must have passed the test.

That was an example of how we can both improve the customer experience and maintain our border security. Given the increasing number of visitors to our country that we expect in future from some of our forecasts, we want to ensure that people are not coming to our border and being held unnecessarily. We also want to ensure that we update both our technology and our systems, while being welcoming to those coming to Britain.

I want to respond to a few of the points that were raised. I recognise the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about ensuring that we reduce abuse of our routes. He quoted from the Border Force’s 2025 strategy; that was written five years ago, so it will obviously need updating to be in line with future provisions. Some of its programmes began, but others were not quite seen through over the last five years for various reasons.

I think the broad direction of travel, as well as the importance of investment in the border, is recognised in all parts of the House. We want to ensure that we have advanced passenger information, which gives information on who may be coming ahead their arrival at the UK border. ETAs are all about trying to ensure that we stop those who might pose a risk from actually travelling to the UK in the first place. The shadow Minister is right to raise that issue, and we want to ensure that we are looking at a border transformation that continues to keep our country as safe as we can.

In my remarks, I outlined the four main areas involved in that: the transition away from physical documents; the retention of biometrics; the prevention of abuse; and the powers to enrol biometrics at the border. The transition away from physical documents was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I want to respond to her point about supporting those who are vulnerable in that transition. When working on the e-visa process, we looked very closely at reducing any risks to those who are more vulnerable in the transition. It was also important to recognise the need for people to have something physical to show to demonstrate status, which is why we have allowed for the printing of an individual’s e-visa account. It does not mean that that is their e-visa account, but it means that they have something physical to refer to in subsequent discussions with the Home Office. It can be used as evidence of having an e-visa account. This is one of the challenges that came out of the Windrush scandal—how someone can prove what their status is and what their records are with the Government. It is important that people are able to prove their status and records.

That print-out can be kept, travelled with and used in discussions with the Home Office. It could be used as a supporting document if someone were to have issues coming back from travelling. If the carrier they were travelling was not calling the carrier hub or there were an issue with their electronic status, there would be a document they could have in their hand. I want to make sure that the message is out there that people will be able to use the document for that.

In relation to vulnerable persons, we recognise that the transition to e-visas has an impact on those who are more digitally excluded. That is why we continue to work closely with a range of stakeholders. Before Christmas I did an interview with Age UK, which shared the video on its Facebook page about how we meet stakeholders who are raising concerns with us to reassure them and explain the mitigations we have in place.

We provide a free assisted digital service for those who may be digitally excluded. We work collaboratively with a range of third-party stakeholders who are funded to provide support services to vulnerable customers with the most complex needs. Users can also contact UK Visas and Immigration’s resolution centre, which provides telephone and email support to those using the online immigration status services. The centre can assist users experiencing technical difficulties with their online immigration status. Where necessary, the resolution centre will enable an individual’s status to be verified through alternative means as well.

In addition, individuals can nominate a helper and give them limited access to their account. That is extremely important. Where a person is unable to manage their own affairs—due to age or disability, for example—they can appoint a proxy who can be authorised to create and manage the account on their behalf. With a digitalised system, we can send multiple notifications to remind people and their proxies what they are required to do. That is similar to when my sister was able to be a proxy for my mother for medical records; the same email that went to my mother also went to my sister, who could have a conversation with her about what it contained.

The changes in the instrument will ensure that the right legal framework is in place to support the ongoing transition to e-visas. We will not require people over the age of 70 to update their facial image or make them create an account if they hold an expired biometric residence permit, but we will encourage them to update it for their own convenience. We are looking at a range of methodologies to monitor the performance of the e-visa system. That includes reviewing feedback and complaints and having continued engagement with interested groups that represent vulnerable users. In fact, we do this on an ongoing basis. We will also monitor levels of usage.

Finally, on ETAs and tourism, it is important to note the research done on this. There has not been much evidence that fees increases to date have affected volumes on tourism routes. The assessment published alongside the fees order suggests that any increase to the fee within the limit set by the new maximum will be unlikely to have a significant impact on demand, estimating a 0.5% fall in ETA applications in a central cost scenario, and an impact on tourism of £42 million in the next financial year. It is worth saying that in the 11 or so years that the UK has had the electronic system for travel authorisation, there has actually been an increase in the number of visitors to the US.

I will just mention Northern Ireland, because it has been raised with me before in the House. We understand the concerns about the potential impact of ETAs on tourism in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive since the inception of the ETA policy, and we will continue to work with partners to understand the impact of ETAs in Northern Ireland. It is important that we are able to have those who are crossing the land border into Northern Ireland complete an ETA, and that we have a better understanding of all those who are seeking to come to the UK.

I will make a final comment on sponsorship. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove raised the question of health and care visas, and she will also understand, I am sure, that it is important that we provide all the support we can for those already in the UK who may be in between employers, so that they can be employed by services that are still looking to recruit from overseas. That is one reason why the Home Office has been working with the regional hubs and the Department of Health and Social Care on this, with £60 million of funding having gone into it. For those who have come here on health and care visas—for whatever reason, whether a sponsorship licence has been withdrawn, or there have been issues of abuse or poor conditions with their employer—we are more easily able to match them with areas and regions within the UK where there is recruitment happening. It is different in each region, but it is extremely important to make sure that the system works effectively. We continue to work with employers in all sectors to understand where there is demand and need for recruitment from abroad. That is a key area that we continue to keep under review with the Migration Advisory Committee, which is looking at where we have particular dependence on skilled worker recruitment from abroad, and what more we can do through the new systems we are putting in place to better predict demand and to upskill at home.

In conclusion, the changes in the order will ensure that our fees are set at a level that supports our fees and funding objectives. I emphasise again that these changes will not amend specific fees, and any future fee changes will be subject to approval by Parliament. Throughout the lifespan of the fees order, immigration fees will continue to be reviewed and updated where necessary, and all existing Government oversight arrangements will remain in place. The modernised immigration and border system will allow foreign nationals to view their status information in real time on digital platforms in the form of an e-visa, and update their details or documentation more readily. The regulations will simplify the process for gathering biometrics, standardise the way we use them and retain them, and allow us to take a significant step forward in delivering a border and immigration system that is a modern, digital service. As such, I commend the order and the regulations to the Committee.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025.—(Seema Malhotra.)

eVisas

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Written Statements

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

The Home Office is continuing to develop a border and immigration system that is more digital and streamlined, which includes the roll-out of digital evidence of immigration status, in the form of eVisas. eVisas bring significant benefits. They cannot be lost, stolen, or tampered with, unlike a physical document, and also increase the UK immigration system’s security and efficiency.

We are committed to ensuring a smooth transition to eVisas for all status holders. On 4 December we published the first eVisa statistics, showing the number of people who had created a UK Visas and Immigration account to access an eVisa. Since that time, we have continued to see steady take up of UKVI account creations and our outreach is continuing to ensure awareness of the transition for those who have not yet set up their UKVI account, to encourage them to do so as soon as possible. While the eVisa is created by the Home Office for each person to reflect their immigration status, creating a UKVI account offers a number of benefits, including people being able to update personal details and being able to view and share evidence of immigration status with third parties, such as an employer or a landlord.

Since the first eVisa statistics publication in December 2024, we have further analysed the eVisa data to provide additional quality assurance and enhance our understanding of who has not yet acted. Our analysis has shown that a number of people who opted to create a UKVI account during this period already had one in place as part of their visa application. While this should not usually present any issues for these individuals, it does mean that the published data includes a number of duplicate accounts. If people experience problems, they can contact the resolution centre using online webchat or by phone. In order to maintain consistency in the data, we are continuing to publish the total number of eVisa account creations, recognising that this contains duplicates. However, we are also clarifying our revised estimate of the numbers of immigration status holders who still need to take action and set up an account to access their eVisa.

We had previously estimated the number of biometric residence permit holders who needed to create an account to access their eVisa at over 4 million but have always been clear that this number is hard to establish accurately given the daily fluctuations in this data, with people’s leave expiring, people leaving the country before their leave expires or leave being cancelled or curtailed. Further analysis has shown that the overall number of people with a BRP was in fact lower than we had estimated, because of how duplicate BRP cards were handled in the data. We have also confirmed that some BRP holders who have not yet created a UKVI account had permission which expired during January 2025, and will either have left the UK already or will have the opportunity to create an account as part of their application for further permission (e.g. students making applications for graduate study.)

Today we have published the latest eVisa statistics on gov.uk which show that just over 4 million people have successfully created a UKVI account to access their eVisa up to the end of January 2025. We therefore now estimate that around 600,000 immigration status holders who need to take action to access their eVisa are currently still waiting to do so.

This means that a significant majority of the immigration status holders who needed to take action have done so, but we continue to encourage and support those who have not yet made the switch to follow suit. We are conducting further analysis of the data to inform our approach to reaching those yet to access their eVisa, and to help make their transition as smooth as possible.

We have also kept under review the use of BRPs and EU settlement scheme biometric residence cards which expire on or after 31 December 2024 but which were permitted for continued travel to the end of March 2025. In line with our ongoing commitment to ensure a smooth roll-out, we are announcing today that this measure will be extended for a further two months, up to and including 1 June 2025. We advise people with valid immigration permission, but with a BRP or EUSS BRC that expired on or after 31 December 2024, to carry the document when travelling up to and including the 1 June 2025. From the 2 June 2025, expired BRPs and EUSS BRCs will no longer be acceptable for evidencing immigration status when travelling to the UK. This measure relates to travel only.

We encourage people to ensure that they have checked that their current passport or travel document is linked to their eVisa before they travel internationally. If people no longer have a BRP or EUSS BRC, or were not issued with one, their permission to travel to the UK will be checked through other means. People may also wish to get a share code in advance of travel, which is valid for 90 days. This can be done by signing in to the view and prove service— https://www.gov.uk/view-prove-immigration-status —and choosing the option to prove their immigration status for “anything else”. They can then print, write down or store the share code to provide it when needed. Other people with valid, genuine, physical proof of immigration status can continue to use these documents to evidence permission to travel to the UK. Carriers can also contact the 24/7 UK Border Force carrier support hub if needed.

We highly value the input and perspectives from stakeholders operating in this space or representing visa users, recognising their diverse experience and insights are essential to shaping the successful roll-out of a new digital border and we would like to pay tribute to those stakeholders who continue to work with the Home Office to provide valuable feedback. Their assistance has already played a pivotal role in shaping our approach, ensuring the visa system is responsive to the communities it serves.

We hope this announcement demonstrates the importance the Government place on ensuring a seamless shift to eVisas. We remain committed to an open dialogue and fostering collaboration to ensure sustainable and equitable outcomes for all. Finally, we will continue to engage with stakeholders, to help identify areas for continuous improvement and implement changes that enhance fairness, efficiency, and a beneficial experience for users.

[HCWS482]

Antisocial Behaviour: Hertfordshire

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) on securing this important debate and on the work he is doing in his constituency. He has very clearly set out the impact of antisocial behaviour in the cases and stories he has narrated. He has also set out how, when antisocial behaviour is not dealt with, it can be an attraction for other types of crime, creating fear in our communities. The story of how children can pick that up was also well highlighted. He went on to highlight the Conservatives’ record over the past 14 years and the impact it has had on our neighbourhood policing.

I am responding in today’s debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who I am sure will be willing to pick up further on any issues with our hon. Friend. I know he has had a productive conversation with her very recently in which he raised these matters.

My hon. Friend rightly referred to the lamentable record of the previous Government on these matters. Even after the previous Government belatedly sought to deal with and respond to the reduction in the overall number of officers that they presided over, policing has still not returned to our streets. There are still fewer police officers in neighbourhood teams. The proportion of the public who say they never see an officer on the beat has doubled, and the number of police community support officers has halved. It is little wonder, then, that the types of crime and conduct that neighbourhood policing used to tackle have soared, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead highlighted.

Whether it happens in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire or anywhere else, antisocial behaviour is a blight on people and places. As MPs across the House will have seen in their constituencies, it affects communities in different ways and comes in different forms, but fundamentally this is about respect—respect for our laws and our expectations as a society, and respect for our fellow citizens. Those who lack that basic respect and behave antisocially have to be made to face the consequences of their actions. We need to send a message that we will not stand by while decent, law-abiding people suffer as a result of the selfishness of others.

To deliver the change that the country needs, we need to restore a sense of local pride, and give people the confidence that they are safe and secure, whether they are at home, in their neighbourhoods or in public places. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes our safer streets mission, and it is why we have made stronger action to tackle antisocial behaviour a central part of that mission, with a particular emphasis on improving the police response alongside tougher powers to tackle perpetrators.

My hon. Friend laid out some of the specific problems that his constituents have encountered. He will know that I cannot comment on particular cases, but I think it will be helpful for me to share more about the action we are taking more widely. The Government have committed to five core missions, which seek to address some of the fundamental challenges that society is facing over the next 10 years.

The safer streets mission will halve violence against women and girls, halve knife crime, and restore confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. It is focused on addressing harm and confidence in parallel, by taking a whole-system approach. These are long-term aims, but the Government are already taking decisive first steps towards their delivery, including delivering thousands more neighbourhood policing roles and taking steps to tackle antisocial behaviour through new penalties for offenders. These ambitious aims will require a dedicated coalition of Government, public services, the private sector, charities, and the public themselves, to be successful.

Neighbourhood police officers are at the forefront of the fight against antisocial behaviour. However, neighbourhood policing has declined to such an extent in the last decade that many of the bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities have been lost. We are going to bring back neighbourhood policing and ensure that thousands of additional officers are out patrolling towns and communities as part of our mission to make streets safer.

Neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model, and it is a critical building block in helping communities feel safe. We are determined to restore confidence in policing to record levels and restore the vital connection between the police and the communities they serve. That is why we are also working with policing to implement a new neighbourhood policing guarantee, restoring patrols to town centres, recruiting thousands more personnel and ensuring that every community has a named officer to turn to.

We recognise that no single agency can reduce antisocial behaviour alone, and that doing so requires that important partnership. For our part, the Government will ensure that the police, local authorities and other agencies have the powers they need to respond to antisocial behaviour. The powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not go far enough. We will put that right by introducing the respect order. Under the new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions, including bans on entering areas where they have behaved antisocially, such as town centres or other public places. Anyone found breaching a respect order, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead referred to, will face being arrested and could end up behind bars. We will pilot these measures initially, to ensure that they are as effective as possible, before rolling them out across England and Wales. These changes are long overdue.

My hon. Friend mentioned the harm that drugs can do to communities. Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission. We know from the crime survey for England and Wales that people using or dealing drugs is commonly among the top three antisocial behaviour issues for people in their area. The police have a critical role to play in cracking down on drugs misuse and antisocial behaviour. We are working with the police to support and increase voluntary referrals into treatment. Diverting those who use illegal drugs into interventions such as drug treatment services is key to reducing drug misuse, drug-related crime and reoffending. We support the use of drug testing on arrest and out-of-court resolutions to ensure that individuals who commit drug and related offences are given the opportunity to change their behaviour by diverting them to meaningful and appropriate interventions.

The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) asked what is different since the Labour Government came into power. County lines is the most violent model of drugs supply and a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Gangs exploit children and vulnerable adults to move and store drugs and money, often using coercion, intimidation, violence and weapons. Since July 2024, police activity through the county lines programme has resulted in over 400 county lines being closed and hundreds of arrests. Alongside that, the police have identified and referred over 800 children and vulnerable people for safeguarding and support, while over 200 young people have been supported by our specialist victim support services provided by Catch22. We will continue to provide dedicated support for children and young people to escape county lines and child exploitation. That goes hand in hand with our manifesto commitment to roll out further support through the young futures prevention partnerships, identifying at-risk children and young people and making better use of the existing youth services provision.

The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) raised the important issue of retail crime. As the Home Secretary set out in her speech to the Labour party conference, the Government will introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect hard-working and dedicated staff. That is long overdue. We will also end the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200. Shop theft of any amount is illegal, and by repealing the relevant legislation we will ensure that everyone knows that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and all Members who have contributed to this important debate. Antisocial behaviour is clearly an issue of substantial concern in his constituency, as it is all over the country. We have to grip it and, through our safer streets mission, that is precisely what the Government intend to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this very important debate and thank those who have spoken from the Back Benches, including my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). Before I make any further comments, I assure the hon. Member for Strangford that I am very happy to meet him, as always, and indeed I will be visiting Scotland to talk about a number of the issues he has raised today.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), made very similar comments to her speech in the last debate that we were in. I think we can all agree that the immigration system needs to be fair, controlled and managed—much better managed that the chaos that we inherited. Many issues in the design of the health and care visa system contribute to the problems we see today. It is important that that is understood and acknowledged in this debate.

I want to make a broad point: although I will hopefully address a number of the issues raised today, perhaps with some more positive input than may have been understood from some of the recent changes we have made, we understand that our net migration does need to come down from the record highs that we saw under the last Government. We have supported some of the rule changes brought in, including the stopping of dependants, which hon. Members will know.

In that spirit, it is important to say that the Government recognise the vital contribution that care professionals from overseas make to our social care sector. We do share my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s concerns about the treatment of international workers in the care sector. A number of the issues they face are also faced by others from within the UK who are working in the same sector, and I will highlight some of the work we are doing to enact reforms that will be in the interests of all in this very important sector for our country.

My hon. Friend secured this debate in support of a proposal by Unison, as he outlined. I thank Unison for the considerable research and work it does in this area. I look forward to meeting the organisation to discuss not just these issues and its proposal, but its wider insights on issues facing workers. I hope that in this debate I can address some of the concerns raised and set out both what we are already doing, which I think goes quite a long way to addressing those concerns, and why addressing those concerns continues to be a high priority for this Government.

Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care visa, which recognises the crucial contribution made by our international health and care workers. Those visas involve significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a quicker processing time and a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Since February 2020, UK employers have been able to use this route to recruit people from overseas to work as carers. Under the previous Government, the number of carers recruited grew beyond expectations, and it is for that reason as well that this Government have maintained the measures the previous Government introduced in the spring of 2024.

The changes brought in by these new visas were stood up at pace by the previous Government to address what had become acute shortages in the adult social care sector. The issues the sector was facing had not been addressed and became a crisis—not unlike other workforce challenges—and they were then worsened by the covid-19 pandemic. The safeguards that should have been put in place when setting up these visas were not as effective as they could have been, and we have seen a range of abusive and exploitative practices in the sector. These have ranged from employers not having the work to fulfil workers’ contracts to abhorrent practices such as the housing issues that have been talked about, unfair shifts, pay and documents being withheld, and modern slavery. Hon. Members have also spoken about a lack of dignity, and a fear of taking holiday or sick leave or of speaking up when issues are faced. These are serious concerns and must be addressed.

That is why, in the autumn, I met colleagues in the Department of Health. At that meeting, I discussed these issues and the progress of actions that have already been taken, looking at where we might see longer-term plans for the care sector. As has been referenced in today’s debate, the recently introduced Employment Rights Bill establishes a framework for fair pay agreements, through which an agreement for the adult social care sector can be negotiated and reached in partnership by employers, worker representatives and others. That is yet another example of the Government taking steps and actions to address the serious issues that have been outlined. The Minister for Care and I will be discussing these issues further with our counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, recognising local government’s stake in these issues, to understand how our Departments can come together and work more collaboratively.

Although the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole focuses on health and care workers, it is worth mentioning that these issues seem to be particularly prevalent in lower-paying sectors such as care. In other areas of the health sector, the sponsorship system seems to be working well, with little need for significant Home Office intervention. However, I want to set out the steps we are taking to assist affected workers and the action that is already being implemented to tackle rogue employers.

First, we have seen that jobs in the care sector often do not have enough hours to support the workers who have been recruited to come to the UK. It is in no one’s interest to grant care worker visas when there is no guaranteed care work for visa holders to come to; that does not support care needs or our constituents, and it can also leave visa holders unable to support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. UK Visas and Immigration is applying the genuine vacancy test with a clearer understanding of the care sector’s recruitment processes and practices, to make sure that sponsors prove that the job is required and that they have enough work to ensure that the person will be doing the proposed job and paid the required salary. That is vital, given that international recruits on those contracts do not have recourse to public funds.

In the case of care workers who have come to this country in good faith to support these sectors and our constituents, but who have been left without a licensed sponsor, the Department for Health and Social Care has been working closely with the Home Office to design a process that will support those displaced care workers into new roles within the adult social care sector. Government officials, alongside 15 regional hubs in England made up of local authorities and directors of adult social services, are working together to support displaced workers into new roles. These regional partnerships have received £16 million this financial year to support them to prevent and respond to unethical practices in the sector. That includes providing funding support to help international recruits understand their rights. It also includes establishing operational processes with regional partnerships to support individuals to switch employers and remain working in the care sector in which they have been impacted when, for example, their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. We need to build on the progress that has already been made.

It is important to note that, as part of that process, workers in adult social care roles receive a bespoke letter direct from the Home Office that notifies them if their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. It also gives them the directions and contacts, so that they can get in contact with their regional partnership hub if they want to secure new employment and new sponsorship. The letter is sent before the visa cancellation process starts and is designed to give workers in adult social care the time to access assistance. I am keen to see the process made quicker, and I will work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that that is the case and that the process is as effective as it can be.

Where a worker believes that they are being exploited, but their sponsor is not yet subject to Home Office compliance action, the Government encourage them to come forward to regional hubs. Although the service is primarily for care workers whose employer’s sponsor licence has been revoked, we would expect support to be offered to other care workers who approach those hubs. I understand that some workers will be fearful, but I would encourage them and send them this message: they should come forward to report their experiences and secure help. For care workers specifically, the Home Office will waive priority service fees for applications supported by regional hubs.

Those who have come to the UK legitimately to support our care sector should be given the best opportunity to do so and be treated with fairness and respect. That is why the Government are also stepping up action against rogue employers. The Government have made clear our intention to crack down on those employers who are abusing the immigration system, and we will prevent them from sponsoring overseas workers. That will benefit all workers across our points-based system.

Let me turn specifically to the issue of employers passing on sponsorship costs to their workers, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members and is an outrageous practice. It has always been the intention that those benefiting from the recruitment of overseas workers should bear the costs of that sponsorship, and the Government believe that to be typical of most good employers. However, there are a small number of employers who have sought to load their sponsorship costs on to lower-paid international workers, and that must be stopped.

I am pleased to confirm that the Home Office has implemented policy changes to address that practice by skilled worker sponsors, including in the health and care sector. Those sponsors are now prevented from passing on the costs of acquiring a sponsor licence or of assigning the certificate of sponsorship, as well as any administrative and legal costs associated with having and using a licence. It is our intention to go further and implement that more broadly across all sponsored work routes.

As we set out before Christmas, the Government intend to go further and ban any employer who flouts employment laws from engaging with the immigration system. Visa and employment laws will be brought into closer alignment. Our sponsorship system will also reflect measures being driven and delivered by our Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. The Home Office will ensure that new protections set out in the Bill and the work of the flagship fair work agency are integrated into the sponsorship framework, strengthening the existing measures designed to prevent the mistreatment and exploitation of sponsored workers.

Although a key objective of the sponsorship system is to ensure that international workers are protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses, the Government recognise that the requirement to be sponsored and the worker’s reliance on their sponsor can, in some circumstances, make it more difficult for sponsored workers to change their employer. Those who wish to seek alternative employment can do so if they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor and make a new application. They are able to do that at any time, and do not need to wait until their sponsor is no longer able to employ them. Individuals have different options, depending on their circumstances, and can seek advice from an accredited immigration adviser.

If a sponsored care worker has lost their job because the sponsor’s licence has been revoked, they should, again, contact their regional support hub for assistance, as people who have been the victim of exploitation. The most important thing is that these individuals are supported to use the process and are able to make an application, which will enable them to regularise their stay. Anything short of that risks leaving them in a more vulnerable position, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that that is prevented.

Finally, we are deeply concerned by reports of unethical practices relating to international recruits in the care sector. That is why we are taking decisive steps to address the issue, and why UK Visas and Immigration continues to investigate and take action alongside partners where evidence of abuse is found. It is engaging with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and other relevant agencies to hold employers to account, and working with the Department for Health and Social Care to support impacted workers.

In conclusion, we continue to look at the best approaches for the immigration system, but it is important to note that the sponsorship compliance regime has exposed widespread abuse and stripped hundreds of rogue employers of their ability to recruit internationally. The system is therefore key to ensuring that future workers receive the pay and conditions promised when they applied for their visa. Although we recognise the issues raised today, there is also much more work to do urgently to improve the system. We are utterly committed to doing that and to working with colleagues across the House to make those changes and improvements a reality.

Family Visas: Income Requirement

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 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 all those from across the Chamber who have contributed to this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank Shannon who started the petition and the over 100,000 people who signed it. The petition was concluded before the general election, but it has been brought forward for debate in the House.

It is important to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) about the delays in Home Office cases. That is a separate matter from the one we are discussing. However, I will say that we inherited a Home Office with utterly chaotic systems. The huge amount—£700 million—spent on the Rwanda scheme and the diversion of caseworkers have partly contributed to the chaos that we have seen across a number of visa routes. I hope that we are starting to bring that under some control, so that applications can be processed more swiftly and people are not left waiting as long as they have been.

It is also important to make the point that migration has always been a part of our nation’s history. For generations, people have travelled here from all over the world to contribute to our economy, study in our universities, work in our public services and be part of our communities. Indeed, British citizens also continue to travel across the world and may choose to make their home abroad. We recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country, but as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and all those across the House will be aware, we have said that net migration, which reached record highs under the last Government—over 900,000 in the year ending June 2023—is unsustainable. It needs to come down, and we have made that commitment. However, there has been a broader conversation in the contributions from Members across the House. I will endeavour to respond to the specific points raised, but first I want to set out the background to the minimum income requirement, or the MIR. I will set out how it came about and what our position is now.

As we know, appendix FM was brought into the immigration rules in 2012 to set out the requirements for family members wishing to come to or stay in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a family member who is British or settled here. It also brought the MIR into the immigration rules, with the aim of ensuring that family migrants could be supported at a reasonable level by their sponsoring family member so that, as has been raised, there was no unreasonable burden on the British taxpayer and to help to ensure that they had the independence and means to participate sufficiently in everyday life, to support themselves and to facilitate integration into Britain.

The right to family life is a qualified right, and the family immigration rules, including the MIR, carefully balance that right against the legitimate aim of protecting the economic wellbeing of the UK. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable to both them and the taxpayer. In 2017, the Supreme Court agreed that this principle strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and the community in general.

When the MIR was introduced as part of the changes to the immigration rules, it was set at £18,600, following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. At that time, the figure represented the level of income that a family could receive at which point they would cease to be eligible for income support. Between its introduction and April 2024, it was not increased in line with inflation or real wages or adjusted in the light of rising numbers of migrants using the route. The previous Government then decided to raise the MIR to bring it in line with the median income for skilled workers, which is currently £38,700. The decision was made without consultation and without the benefit of advice from the Migration Advisory Committee.

Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Government decided to implement the rise incrementally. The first increase, to £29,000, took place in April 2024, and no further changes have yet taken place. It is our view that any change must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and form part of a system that is fair, clear and consistent. To achieve that, as has been mentioned, the Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. That includes the level of the MIR and how it can be met.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

A number of Members have raised concerns about the discrepancies in incomes and average earnings across different regions and nations of the UK. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Migration Advisory Committee will look at those?

[Seema Malhotra]

Indeed, that is what we would expect.

The Migration Advisory Committee has already completed a call for evidence. It may be of interest to the House that that call for evidence, which gathered the views of stakeholders and those affected by changes to family rules and closed on 11 December, saw more than 2,000 responses—a record for a Migration Advisory Committee consultation. The comments received will inform the review being conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee. I am sure that many interested Members and their constituents will have taken part in that opportunity to provide views, because, as has been mentioned, a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that effective recommendations can be made.

The Migration Advisory Committee has also commissioned two pieces of research to independent research contractors: a survey with a sample of applicants to the family visa, and qualitative reviews with people who applied and those who were not able to apply. Fieldwork will start in the next few weeks, and further information can be found on gov.uk. The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent body, and I know that the review will be robust and transparent, considering the impact on family life, children, equalities and regional variations in income. It is expected that the MAC will issue its report in the summer, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before making any further changes.

I will address a few of the points raised by hon. Members from across the House. Some hon. Members called for us to scrap the MIR altogether. However, as I said, it is a long-established principle that family life in the UK must be on a basis that balances the needs of the family and those of the UK taxpayer, and that also enables family migrants to integrate into British life. The family immigration rules are flexible and contain safeguards to protect the right to family life.

It is worth highlighting a few of the safeguards that are currently in the rules, because that will inform some of the hon. Members who made contributions today. Those who cannot meet the core requirements of the rules, including the MIR, may still be granted leave if they have exceptional circumstances that mean refusing their application would be unjustifiably harsh. That takes into account the impact on children and considers their best interests. It is in accordance with our obligations under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Where someone is granted leave on the basis of exceptional circumstances, they are placed on a longer, 10-year route to settlement, which is granted in four tranches of 30-month periods, with a fifth application for indefinite leave to remain.

The rules recognise that some sponsors will have reduced earning capacity as a result of disability or caring for someone with a disability. Therefore, an applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of certain specified disability-related benefits or allowances is exempt from meeting the MIR. Instead, they must meet a requirement for adequate maintenance, demonstrating that they can support themselves and their family without relying on public funds.

[Tom Gordon]

The Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), mentioned the point about personal independence payments. Obviously, not everybody who has a disability is eligible for every benefit; there are certain thresholds and requirements in order to get those statuses, and the conditions of people with disabilities might vary and change. How does that factor into what the Minister is saying?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am sure that those issues will have been raised in the responses that have come to the Migration Advisory Committee. It is right that the MAC is reviewing how the current financial requirements are operating, including looking at the impact on family units. It is important to mention that both the immigration fees and the immigration health surcharge may be waived based on what the applicant can afford.

I will briefly mention those who work for His Majesty’s armed forces in relation to the immigration rules. I note that the previous Government laid immigration rules in March 2024 that brought the MIR for His Majesty’s armed forces, including the Brigade of Gurkhas and the Royal Air Force partner route, in line with the armed forces salary threshold on completion of training, which was £23,496 for the 2023-24 financial year. That no longer includes an additional income requirement to sponsor a child. Tethering the MIR to the armed forces salary threshold takes into account the unique nature of their service, the armed forces covenant and the recruitment and retention of the armed forces in order to maintain national security.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber at the start of the debate.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman came in quite late.

[Seema Malhotra]

As always, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to catch me after the debate.

In relation to impact assessments, the previous Government published some initial analysis, which was referenced in the debate, on the volume impacts of the first stage of the minimum income requirement increase in December 2023, when the decision was announced. They committed to publishing the full analysis in the impact assessment, but that was not done when the rules changed or when the general election took place.

Impact assessments are important to enable scrutiny of the impact of the increase of the MIR. That is why we published the regulatory and equalities impact assessments for net migration measures under the previous Government in September and paused any further increases while the Migration Advisory Committee reviews the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. Once the MAC report has been received, a further equalities impact assessment will be completed to inform any further changes that are made.

To conclude, I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and value the contribution that those from overseas make to our economy, public services and civic life. We recognise that that needs to be balanced as part of a fair, managed and controlled migration system.

[Seamus Logan]

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), speaking for the Opposition, described the public’s perception of these rules as being of great concern, as if there were a homogeneous view across the country. We know that is not the case: there is a different view in Scotland. During my speech I asked the Minister to confirm whether the leader of the Labour party in Scotland was in discussions with the Government regarding a bespoke Scottish visa. She has not answered that question yet, but I hope she will. Perhaps she can also confirm whether that might extend to partner visas as well.

[Seema Malhotra]

The hon. Member is right that views vary, but, in line with how the public see immigration, it is important that there should be a fair system that is controlled and well managed. It is extremely important for us to ensure we have controls around our system and not the utter chaos we saw under the last Government. Frankly, to say one thing and be doing almost the opposite is exactly what drives cynicism with politics and with control over immigration and our public services.

On the questions that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has raised, I should say that I am in contact with a number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and other colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member will know our position because it is his colleagues who have raised the issue there. We will not be devolving immigration policy, because the issues that Scotland faces are the same issues faced in other areas. They also relate to labour market issues, whether that be pay, controls or conditions. It is important that we understand the issues, which is why I will visit Scotland in the near future. It is important to hear at first hand from those around the country, as we must have an immigration system that works for all parts of the United Kingdom.

The migration system and the MIR is an important issue. I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members on different sides today and in the many pieces of correspondence I have received on this topic from Members, many of whom are here today. We must understand the impact of any potential further changes and ensure that policy in this area has a firm evidence base. I look forward to receiving the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations in the summer, which I am sure will inform the next steps we take and the debate in Parliament and across the country.