Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Seema Malhotra ExcerptsWednesday 4th June 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 View all Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am pleased to bring the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill before the Committee.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 enables the Secretary of State to make an order to relax licensing hours in licensed premises in England and Wales for occasions
“of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
I am sure we all agree that pubs and other hospitality venues hold a special and significant place in our communities. They often sit at the very heart of them. They transcend generations, help to combat loneliness and bring us together. When moments of national importance emerge, many people gravitate towards them to share those moments.
Not only does relaxing licensing hours ensure that communities can mark such special occasions together, but it reduces unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy for local authorities and for the hospitality industry. Currently, the relevant legislation requires the affirmative procedure to be followed to implement such extensions. The Bill proposes a simple change that will enable them to be brought about via the negative procedure, thereby freeing up valuable parliamentary time.
What will change? As the Committee will be aware, the affirmative procedure requires that we debate any order to extend licensing hours in both Houses. The Bill will remove the mandatory requirement for such debates. Instead, hon. Members will be able to pray against an extension if they consider it appropriate to do so, which in turn may trigger a debate. Previous orders to extend licensing hours in such circumstances have passed unopposed and with overwhelming support. The Bill will reduce the burden on parliamentary time and resources, while still allowing concerns to be expressed.
The criteria for making an extension will remain unchanged. The Government remain committed to using the power only on a limited basis. The ability to make an order to extend licensing hours lies with the Home Secretary; all such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. In practical terms, the hope is that the Bill will ensure that the next time we see the next great sporting or other occasion that justifies a relaxing of hours, no pub or hospitality venue will miss out on the chance to open its doors to its local community a little earlier or later and to enjoy everything that comes with such an occasion.
Clause 1 will permit the Home Secretary to make such extension orders when they are deemed appropriate, without having to go through unnecessary parliamentary hurdles. Clause 2 will simply mean that the Bill comes into force on the day of Royal Assent and extends to England and Wales only. As no amendments have been tabled, my hope is that the Committee will agree to both clauses of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham on promoting a Bill that has been greeted so warmly by the House, and on laying out the case for it so clearly and succinctly today.
This is a Government-backed Bill that will cut red tape and claim back valuable parliamentary time while bringing benefits in the form of increased revenues for businesses and reducing burdens on licensing authorities. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who has been working on the Bill; I am speaking in her place, as she is unable to be present.
The Bill will make an amendment to the Licensing Act to allow licensing extensions to be made more quickly and simply. Furthermore, it will make it possible to extend licensing hours for significant events at short notice even when Parliament is not sitting. Under section 172 of the Act, the Secretary of State may make an order that relaxes licensing hours in England and Wales for
“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
Decisions to extend licensing hours in such circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned. The Government will continue to use the power sparingly.
Currently, the affirmative parliamentary procedure is mandatory—my hon. Friend made that point effectively—in the making of such an order, meaning that it requires the approval of both Houses before coming into force. The Bill will make a very simple alteration to the Licensing Act so that the negative resolution procedure is used instead, allowing extensions to licensing hours to be processed without using up valuable parliamentary time. There has always been agreement across the House that we should move forward in such circumstances, for the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined: it benefits all our constituents when they can come together on very special occasions and spend time in pubs and restaurants in our communities. Objections may still be made, where applicable, under the negative resolution procedure, so Parliament will still have a role.
The negative procedure also has the benefit of allowing licensing hours extensions to be made in the rare event that they are needed during parliamentary recesses or at short notice. Following the affirmative procedure is problematic when an order needs to be made at short notice, such as during a sporting event, when the gap between one of the national teams qualifying for the later stages of the competition and the next match is likely to be only a matter of days. In 2021, an emergency order had to be rushed through Parliament at extremely short notice when the England men’s football team reached the final of Euro 2020. In 2023, when the England women’s team progressed to the world cup final, it was not possible to temporarily extend licensing hours, because the House was in recess.
Licensing hours have previously been relaxed for significant royal occasions, such as the platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty the Queen, and for events of significant national importance, such as the recent VE Day 80th anniversary, as well as for major sporting events. Those extensions received cross-party support in both Houses, as was particularly evident during the recent debate on the VE Day extension, which was warmly welcomed by both Houses.
Extending licensing hours for such occasions means that communities can come together in collective celebration, businesses can reap the benefit of increased revenue and local authorities can be spared the burden of processing high volumes of single extensions. We can all appreciate the welcome boost that that will bring to our local economies: we estimate that it could be up to £500,000 on each occasion.
For businesses, taking advantage of such blanket extensions and remaining open for the additional hours is, of course, optional. The Government will continue to plan ahead for such events as much as we can, not least because it is important to ensure as far as possible that the public can have their say through consultation and that key partners such as the police are engaged and have adequate time to prepare.
The Bill is a simple and modest measure that aims to give back valuable parliamentary time and will undoubtedly benefit our businesses, our local authorities and the communities that they serve across England and Wales; it will be for Scotland and Northern Ireland to bring in their own measures. Keeping our pubs open for longer on such occasions will give people the opportunity to join in celebrations and to raise a glass collectively, as a community. The Government therefore fully support the Bill. I hope that it will continue to have a straightforward passage through the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing it.
Andrew Ranger
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks, the Government for their support for the Bill, all members of the Committee for their attendance, and officials in the House and in the Home Office for their assistance in getting the Bill to this point. I think we have covered it in sufficient detail. Thank you for your chairmanship, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Home Department
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olivia Blake
Does the Minister agree that six weeks is a very short time for that consultation to run? Initially it was two weeks. Would not 12 weeks, as has been the case for various pieces of consultation undertaken by the organisation, fit better with the big issue that we are talking about today?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code opened today.
[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 259WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra):
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code is expected to open this week.
Gender Self-identification
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and to respond to this debate, which has been held with tremendous respect for each other, for trans people and for the issues that we face in navigating through the situation, particularly after the Supreme Court ruling. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for the way in which she opened the debate and for her extremely powerful speech. Bringing the voices of the trans community into these debates is important indeed.
I am speaking of behalf on my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who is unable to be in the House due to a visit abroad. We will discuss the debate and the issues raised, and I am sure she will update the House on some of these matters in due course. I also thank all those who signed the petition and all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
I am proud to be a member of the party that introduced the Equality Act 2010, which many colleagues have referred to. It is indeed world-leading legislation, which has reflected our commitment to ensuring that every member of our society is treated with dignity and respect, and afforded the same basic rights as each other. Our commitment to those principles remains resolute, and I am sure that everyone who has participated in the debate can agree that they are at the heart of what we want our society to represent.
I will repeat one phrase that really stood out, which is that everyone has a right to be themselves. It is important that we keep in our minds those who, as has been talked about today, are feeling very insecure. While I may not be able to cover all the points, I will do my best to do so. I also want to give assurance that the comments that have been made are on record and have been heard by the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned, Labour Governments have a very strong history of promoting LGBT+ rights. From the decriminalisation of homosexuality under Harold Wilson’s Government in 1967 through the repeal of section 28 to the introduction of civil partnerships in the early 2000s, we have consistently led the way in advocating for legal equality and social progress for LGBT+ people. It was our then Labour Government that equalised the age of consent, extended adoption rights to same-sex couples, and introduced legislation aimed at combating discrimination and hate crime in the workplace. We laid the crucial groundwork for marriage equality and elevated LGBT+ issues to the forefront of public and political discourse—a legacy that I know Parliament, as well as colleagues in this House, will take great pride in.
The conversation surrounding rights, particularly those related to trans individuals, has sadly become increasingly divided and divisive, as this debate has so importantly highlighted. I think we all agree that it is necessary to approach this debate with honesty, respect and sensitivity to all viewpoints. It is in a similar vein that Lord Hodge, when delivering the Supreme Court judgment that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, underscored the importance of not viewing the judgment as a
“triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”.
That has been referred to a number of times in this debate.
The entrenchment of division and ever-greater polarisation seeks only to move us away from holding the empathetic, meaningful and productive conversations that holistically address the issues that stem from this debate. That is why we have emphasised the importance of balancing all people’s rights, including those of trans people and of women, acknowledging that both groups have real, important and often shared concerns. On matters such as access to single-sex spaces, we understand these issues must be navigated sensitively. The Government’s position embodies a belief that it is both possible and essential to uphold protections for trans individuals while respecting women’s concerns regarding privacy, safety and dignity. Those points were also made very strongly and powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss).
It is also important to recognise—I want to underscore this—that nobody should suffer or feel the fear that so many do today. It is so important to recognise how much words matter. We recognise that, for many trans individuals, the current climate is uncertain and it has become, in too many places, hostile. The Government are committed to ensuring that trans individuals are treated with dignity and respect. The statistics on hate crime and sexual assault that have been shared in the debate, and of which we are aware, must be of concern to all. We are committed to equalising all existing strands of hate crime as aggravated offences, to ensure that all LGBT+ people are fiercely protected under the law. Let me be unequivocal: trans individuals deserve the right to live free from discrimination, violence and fear. There is no place for transphobia in our society, just as there is no place for homophobia or biphobia.
I understand that the recent Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case has left many trans women feeling worried and concerned for their safety. I want to stress that there are also, rightly, laws in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment. That was true before the ruling; the Supreme Court ruling has also underlined that fact.
As has been referred to in the debate, the independent equalities regulator—the Equality and Human Rights Commission—is working to update its statutory code of practice, which will include advice for duty bearers on how to avoid discriminating against groups with protected characteristics, and it has committed to seeking views from all affected stakeholders. The consultation—
Olivia Blake
Does the Minister agree that six weeks is a very short time for that consultation to run? Initially it was two weeks. Would not 12 weeks, as has been the case for various pieces of consultation undertaken by the organisation, fit better with the big issue that we are talking about today?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code opened today. I recognise the consensus that two weeks was too short, and people have already been contributing their views. Agreement has been reached with the Secretary of State for a six-week period, and I hope that during that longer period, those who have already put together their views and shared them can take forward that consultation. There will be extensive consultation with stakeholders, and everybody, including parliamentarians, will have the opportunity to contribute. We welcome the EHRC’s commitment to ensure that diverse voices are included and will be listened to. It is important to also recognise that the final draft of the updated code will be laid in Parliament and subject to scrutiny and consideration by both Houses in due course.
Seema Malhotra
Some of this depends on the EHRC’s work and the time it takes to respond to the consultation; I know that we all want it to do so effectively. It is a matter on which I am sure the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, who is unable to be here today, will update the House in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West will understand that on one hand, we are saying it needs to be longer, and on the other hand we want clarity. What is important is that it is a consultation in which all voices can be heard. I think he will appreciate the assurance that the updated code will be laid in Parliament and will be there for scrutiny and consideration by both Houses. That will be an important part of the process.
Kirsty Blackman
When the Minister encourages the hon. Member for Llanelli to update us on the timelines, will she encourage her to update us with information on what the scrutiny process will be? I might have missed it, but I do not know whether it is subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure. If a statement could be made to the House explaining both those things, that would be helpful for all of us.
Seema Malhotra
That is an important consideration, and I will raise it with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Laws remain in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment, as the Supreme Court pointed out. It is important to state that protections for gender reassignment under the Equality Act have not been affected.
The ruling does not impact how a GRC is issued to change a person’s legal sex for certain purposes, nor does the ruling change its significance. There has been considerable debate on this, so I will make some comments on it, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that this is an ongoing debate. However, as we have heard in this debate, it is important to recognise that trans people deserve the right to get married, to have dignity in death, to access pensions and to live their lives in the same way as anyone else.
We have said that we will look at gender recognition reform. Our immediate priority, as laid out in the King’s Speech, is to make sure that we have a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, to strengthen hate crime protections for trans people, and to improve healthcare for trans people. It is also important to recognise that discussions continue with trans organisations and the trans community. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli will continue to have those discussions.
Any process that allows people to change something as fundamental as their legal sex must have appropriate and proportionate checks and balances. I have heard the different views today, but it is important for me to say—I do not believe this is new information—that the Government do not support self-identification because, as we set out in our manifesto, we believe in protecting the robustness of the process and its legitimate application. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is important in this process.
We all recognise the challenges in accessing NHS services, and it is important to say that the Government are committed to ensuring that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need when accessing NHS services. We are all aware of the delays, which have been happening for far too long. NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, but in the light of the Cass report’s recommendations, NHS England also launched an in-depth review of adult services led by Dr David Levy in August 2024. The review will assess not only the quality, effectiveness, safety and patient experience of each service, but their stability and whether the existing model is still appropriate for the patients they care for.
I can also confirm that, as part of our agenda supporting LGBT+ people, the Government will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that conversion practices are abuse. They do not work, and they can and do inflict deep and lasting harm on victims. The continuation of such acts in our society—a society largely accepting of LGBT+ people—must be challenged. The previous Government failed to act, but this Government will not fail.
That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to publish draft legislation for a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are working hard to draft measures that offer protection from these harmful practices, while also respecting the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Kirsty Blackman
I am looking for an update on the timeline for the conversion practices ban and on what the scrutiny might look like. I understand that it is being published in draft, which is very much appreciated—the Online Safety Act 2023 really benefited from being published in draft—but what scrutiny will happen, and what is the timeline for the initial publication of the draft?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member may not be surprised to hear me say—indeed, I pre-empted her question—that there is not much I can update her on, other than to say that it is a priority for the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. When it is possible to update the House, she will very much want to do that. It is a priority and she is continuing to work on it.
I briefly mentioned Dr Levy’s review of adult gender services in NHS England. We want to ensure that all trans people can get the high-quality care they deserve, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referred to that, too. Also, we remain committed to implementing the recommendations set out in the Cass report, working with NHS England as it continues to improve children’s and young people’s gender services, and ensuring that those services provide the right healthcare, safeguarding and support for children and young people. That means making sure that they are based on the best available evidence and expert clinical opinion.
To briefly refer to the Supreme Court judgment again, I recognise that recent years have seen an increasing focus on the definition of sex in the Equality Act and access to single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court has given its judgment on that point, and the Government have been consistently clear that single-sex spaces must be protected, but we also know that trans people must be protected, and their safety and wellbeing is a matter for all of us. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to protect all members of society, and I hope that with the processes we have, we can now work better together to do just that.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Rainbow Map, and they were right to do so. We were ranked in first place in 2015 but went down to 22nd place this year, and that is a matter of concern. The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold a clear, robust and expansive legal and legislative framework. We are working to advance the rights afforded to LGBT+ people, including, as we have spoken about, by bringing forward legislation in relation to conversion practices and strengthening protections against hate crime. We recognise that there is always more to do.
As we look forward to the future, the Government’s mission remains constant: to create a fairer, more inclusive society. That entails listening actively rather than imposing viewpoints, and it requires people to stand up for those who are marginalised even when those actions prove politically difficult. This debate has been an important contribution to that. More importantly, it involves remembering the core principle—that equality is not a zero-sum game; it elevates us all. We take pride in our achievements and our values, and we will not let complacency or the intent for division take root. Our commitment is to continue listening, learning and fighting for a society where everyone, regardless of their identity or who they love, can live with safety, dignity and hope.
Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025.
I am speaking today on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who is unable to attend the Committee but who worked very closely with Pooja and other members of Ronan Kanda’s family on this important piece of legislation. The order before us today amends the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, and adds ninja swords to the list of prohibited offensive weapons. I will briefly set out the context.
The Government have already taken robust action to address the menace of knife crime, following the implementation of a ban on zombie-style knives and machetes that came into force in September 2024. We are taking every possible step to strengthen enforcement and the prevention of knife crime as part of our wider ranging safer streets mission, and further new measures are contained in the Crime and Policing Bill currently going through Parliament. None the less, as the public would expect, we are keeping our approach under review, and when there is a clear and compelling case, will not hesitate to take further action.
The order before us today was drawn up in response to concerns expressed by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed with a ninja sword in 2022. I am grateful to his Member of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden), for being here today and for all the work that he and Ronan’s family have done to enable us to bring forward this legislation today. In doing so, we seek to honour Ronan’s memory and to recognise the extraordinary courage and determination shown by his loved ones, led by his mother Pooja Kanda, alongside her daughter Nikita. We pay tribute to them for their work with parliamentarians to keep us informed and to make sure that this legislation stayed on track. Despite suffering the most unbearable loss, they have campaigned for a change that will make our society safer. I am grateful that Pooja, Nikita and other guests are with us in the Public Gallery today.
To provide further background information on the order, although there have been relatively few fatal attacks involving ninja swords, even one is too many. There is no doubt that such swords can be lethally dangerous when used violently, or that they are becoming increasingly popular. Under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale, or expose or possess for the purpose of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. The order before us today will enhance public protection by restricting access to ninja swords and preventing their use as weapons to commit violent crimes and cause harm.
Under the order-making powers in section 141(2) of the 1988 Act, the Government wish to add ninja swords to the list of offensive weapons to which section 141 applies. These weapons are defined as a bladed article, with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches long, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. That length was chosen to exclude knives that are designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives. To be in scope of the ban, the article should also have the features specified in paragraph 1A, namely a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine with either a tanto-style point or a reversed tanto-style point.
Although it is right that we take the firmest possible action to prevent violence and to stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. We are confident that this description of ninja swords does not include tools traditionally used in agriculture and farming, gardening or other outdoor activities. We have included in the legislation defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is of historical importance, is owned for a permitted activity, or is made by hand. Antiques are already exempted from section 141 of the 1988 Act. We are also making a defence for blunt instruments to protect the legitimate fantasy sword market.
Parts 3 and 4 of the instrument provide for a surrender and compensation scheme through which owners of weapons in scope of the ban will be able to surrender them. In territorial scope, the instrument will apply only in England and Wales. We hope that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that ninja swords are prohibited across the whole United Kingdom. To that end, officials have engaged with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
To conclude, the Government will not tolerate the risk of these dangerous swords being used to perpetrate violence and cause bloodshed. The tragic loss of so many young lives to knife crime, including that of Ronan Kanda, who is the inspiration for this legislation and for his family’s work, and the resulting trauma that families and communities experience cannot go on. That is why, as part of our safer streets mission, we are aiming to halve knife crime within a decade. It is also why we are bringing forward this order, which I commend to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to wind up this debate, and to respond to some of the comments that have been made. I remind the shadow Minister that under the last Government the police force was largely decimated in terms of neighbourhood policing teams. The subsequent challenges of rising antisocial behaviour and violent crime resulted in this Government having the safer streets mission as a national priority.
The shadow Minister will know that the Home Secretary’s first priority has been to ensure that there is sufficient support for our police, and to deliver on our commitment to have over 13,000 more community support officers on our streets. It is not just the work of the police that makes the difference when tackling knife crime, though. A generation of young people have been left behind by successive Conservative Governments; we see that in school absence figures, in their lack of confidence in themselves and about their futures, and in the rise in mental health issues.
We recognise that it is important to tackle and to halve knife crime, and to deal with the issue coherently. That is why alongside the measures to support the police—giving them new powers, ensuring they are back in our communities, and building relationships and confidence with communities, schools and young people as part of a prevention strategy—it is important to put in place more facilities and support for young people, particularly those at risk of crime in our communities. Our youth hubs, which involve cross-Government working, including the Home Office, the Department for Education and other Departments, are going to be an important part of that. Until we can better support young people to resist the traction into knife crime, often because they believe it is a form of defence, we will struggle to turn the tide. We absolutely must do that, in the interests not just of the lives of young people but of our society and community safety. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the shadow Minister.
It is also important to mention the work of the violence reduction unit, led by the Mayor of London, but these matters do not apply only to London; the strategies need to be nationwide, so that support in communities and for young people at risk of crime reaches into the heart of wherever it is needed. I also want to assure the shadow Minister that we have worked hard on making sure that the definition of ninja sword in the legislation does not include other swords. We recognise the importance of exemptions for swords of historical importance or that are made by hand. I outlined that in my opening remarks.
I would like to comment on the surrender scheme and compensation. For those who wish to be compensated for giving in their ninja sword, we have set the standard compensation rate at £5, based on wholesale costs from manufacturers. That is based on research, rather than retail costs, in order to avoid the possibility of retailers profiting from the scheme. The order also specifies that no compensation will be payable unless the individual is the lawful owner or can show that they owned or had a contract to acquire the weapon on or before the cut-off date of 27 March 2025. Individuals will also need to provide acceptable proof, such as a purchase receipt or other evidence, that they owned the weapon before that date.
We have also provided a defence for blunt items. That will enable collectors of fantasy swords and users of blunt training or re-enactment swords to possess and purchase items that would otherwise be prohibited. Of course, if a blunt item that falls under the definition is subsequently sharpened, it will become illegal, and a charge of unlawful possession of a prohibited offensive weapon could be laid. A defence already exists for those who want to own prohibited swords for sports, martial arts and re-enactment, and we will be extending that defence to ninja swords.
Again, I thank those who have contributed throughout the debate on this subject, and those who have shared their thoughts with me and my colleague the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East and other Members of Parliament in all parts of the House and across the country who have been involved in supporting Pooja, Nikita and their family in their campaign.
We are united in recognising that knife crime is dangerous, abhorrent, and all too often deadly. It leaves families utterly broken and communities devastated. The order represents an important step in the effort to halve knife crime driven by the Home Secretary, for whom that has been a personal commitment. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
2.49 pm
Committee rose.
Equality Law: Call for Evidence
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I am pleased to announce the launch of a call for evidence on equality law, an important step in this Government’s missions to break down barriers and make work pay. This call for evidence aims to gather comprehensive insights from expert stakeholders in order to shape future policy development and potential legislative reform.
Equality is a key factor in delivering long-term and sustainable growth across the UK economy. It is essential that individuals can achieve according to their talents, irrespective of their background. This not only maximises individual opportunity but enables businesses to employ the best person for the job, leading to increased productivity, innovation, and economic resilience, driving up household incomes and putting more money in working people’s pockets.
Our goal is to understand how we can better remove barriers to ambition and success for everyone, to improve the lives of working people and strengthen our country as part of our plan for change.
We are seeking evidence and views on the following areas:
the prevalence of pay discrimination on the basis of race and disability;
making the right to equal pay effective for ethnic minority and disabled people;
measures to ensure that outsourcing of services can no longer be used by employers to avoid paying equal pay;
improving the enforcement of equal pay rights by establishing an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit, with the involvement of trade unions;
improving pay transparency;
strengthening protections against combined discrimination;
ensuring the public sector equality duty is met by all parties exercising public functions;
creating and maintaining workplaces and working conditions free from sexual harassment;
commencing the socioeconomic duty.
We invite responses from anyone with evidence in these areas. Contributions will be crucial in shaping the steps we take towards achieving a fair, prosperous and equitable society for all. A copy of the call for evidence on equality law has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS578]
Resettlement of Ukrainians: Coatbridge
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 ExcerptsThursday 13th March 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ExcerptsThursday 13th March 2025
(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
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.
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.
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.
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(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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]