Oral Answers to Questions
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Member will know that we take our international obligations very seriously. We are satisfied that the good character policy is compliant with those obligations. We have strengthened our policy to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, will normally be refused British citizenship. The good character assessment has been a feature of UK immigration law since 1981 and there has never been any suggestion, either now or in the past, that it is inconsistent with our obligations under the refugee convention or any other treaty.
Pete Wishart
One of the most shocking and egregious things this Government have done is impose a blanket ban on British citizenship for all individuals who have entered the UK irregularly, without any parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, effectively disenfranchising all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who have made this country their home for years. The Refugee Council estimates that up to 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum could now be blocked from securing naturalisation. The Minister knows that there are no safe routes to get to the UK, so nearly all asylum seekers have to arrive irregularly. Surely the policy clearly breaches article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising those seeking protection for their mode of entry? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. All Members should be respectful and mindful of their language at all times. Now we need to hear the Minister respond.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that we explained when making the changes that each citizenship application will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and that the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there has been particularly exceptional or mitigating circumstances, such as modern slavery.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Ukrainians in the UK deserve stability after fleeing war, yet almost half report severe stress and anxiety caused by prolonged uncertainty about their visa status. Some 44% have lost a job opportunity, 26% have been unable to sign new tenancy agreements and 25% have had a student loan rejected, all because of that uncertainty. Does the Minister agree that this is an unacceptable way of treating those to whom we opened our arms, and will she commit to giving Ukrainian refugees the certainty about their visas that they deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Lady will be aware that we continue to stand by Ukraine, and to support those whom we have been able to welcome to our country. We have provided certainty under the Ukraine permission extension scheme, which we opened on 4 February. Under that scheme, people can prove that they have ongoing status through section 3C leave during their application process.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. These are topical questions. I call the Minister.
Seema Malhotra
I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about the case she raises.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, we Conservatives proposed a new clause that would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK. That would have introduced accountability and transparency, but it was voted down decisively by Labour Members. The Government talk tough, but does the Home Secretary not believe that the British public deserve a transparent and honest answer to the question of what the level of migration will be under this Government, rather than the Government’s just blaming us, or saying “lower numbers” on every occasion?
Seema Malhotra
I am staggered by that question, because net migration reached record highs under the Conservatives’ watch. We are the ones with a plan to bring it down. Quite frankly, the hon. Lady should support that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Mohamed waited nearly three years for a decision on his asylum application, a period that was extended by the pause in processing Syrian asylum cases. If the Minister will not end the pause, what interim steps will she take to further support host communities such as Falkirk?
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Vickers
Liberal Democrat new clause 29 requires that within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State should lay before Parliament provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to family members of people granted refugee status and of people granted humanitarian protection. In the new clause, family members include: a person’s parent, including adoptive parent; their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; and their child or sibling, including their adopted child or adoptive sibling, who is either under 18 or under 25, having been under 18 or unmarried
“at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum”.
Further, it can be taken to mean
“other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to…the importance of maintaining family unity…the best interests of a child…the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person.”
If those provisions were not already incredibly vague, the Liberal Democrats have included a proposal that other persons can be determined by the Secretary of State. That could obviously result in a huge number of spurious claims made by family members who will say that they have a dependency on another person so they must be allowed to come to the UK under the provision. We already have judges completely stretching the definition of “right to family life” under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Liberal Democrat clause would be subject to even more abuse.
Beyond the vagueness, new clause 29 risks piling unbearable pressure on an economy already creaking under migration’s weight. Each new family member, however loosely defined, brings costs—in housing, where shortages already top 1.2 million units, in healthcare, with NHS waits stretching past 7 million, and in schools, where 9 million pupils squeeze into overstretched classrooms. The costs of supporting asylum for individuals run into the tens of thousands of pounds. Multiply that by thousands of dependants under this elastic clause, and we are staring at billions more siphoned from taxpayers, who have already seen their council tax spike. The Liberal Democrats do not set a cap; they fling the door open ever wider, ignoring how finite our resources are. Britain’s compassion has no bounds, but its resources certainly do. Our generosity must have limits. New clause 29 pretends otherwise, and working families will foot the bill when the system groans under the strain.
The new clause does not just invite claims; it opens a legal floodgate that could drown our courts in precedent-setting chaos by letting the Secretary of State define “family” on a whim. Whether we are talking about emotional ties or financial need, new clause 29 hands judges a blank slate to scribble ever-wider interpretations, building on the already elastic right to family life under article 8.
We have seen what has happened. As has been mentioned, an Albanian stayed because his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets. A Pakistani offender lingered, citing harshness to his kids. Let us now imagine dozens or hundreds of cases stacking up, each further stretching dependency—cousins, in-laws, distant kins—all cementing new norms that bind future policy. The Lib Dems would not just be tweaking rules; they would be unleashing a judicial snowball that would roll over border control for years to come. “Family unity” sounds noble, but the sprawl under new clause 29 could stall integration in its tracks—a challenge we cannot ignore when one in six UK residents was born abroad. Bringing in broad swathes of dependants, potentially with limited English skills or ties, risks clustering communities inward, not outward.
If we look across the channel, we see that Germany tightened family reunification after 1.1 million arrivals, capping it at 1,000 monthly for refugees’ kin, citing overload. We are not outliers for wanting clarity. Other nations prove it works, yet the Lib Dems chase a boundless model, ignoring how allies balance compassion with capacity, leaving us to pick up the pieces when this experiment fails.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire proposes an amendment that seeks to significantly change the current refugee family reunion policy, and to expand the current eligibility to include siblings, children under the age of 25 and any undefined family member.
The Government fully support the principle of family unity and the need to have provisions under the immigration rules that enable immediate family members to be reunited in the UK when their family life has been disrupted because of conflict or persecution. Accordingly, in recognition of the fact that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict or persecution, and because of the speed or manner in which people may be forced to flee their homes, communities and country, our refugee family reunion policy is extremely important and generous. The route enables those granted a form of protection in the UK to sponsor their partner or child to come to the UK, provided that they formed part of that family unit before they sought protection. Increasing numbers of visas have been granted through this route under the current policy, and indeed under the previous Administration. In 2024, 19,710 people were granted family reunion visas—twice the number in 2023, when around 9,300 visas were granted.
On the specific proposals in the new clause, it should be noted that any expansion of the existing approach without careful thought, including where such an expansion would allow an undefined family member to be brought to the UK, could significantly increase the number of people who qualify to come here, and runs the risk of abuse of those routes. That would have an impact on the taxpayer and could result in further pressures on public services and local authorities, which may have to accommodate and support the new arrivals.
We believe that introducing a rule that allows children to sponsor their relatives would risk creating incentives for more children to be encouraged or even forced, as we know can happen, to leave their families and risk hazardous journeys to the UK across the channel in small boats. That is a serious and legitimate concern regarding the best interests of those children.
Susan Murray
I thank the Minister. It is good to hear that the Government support the principle of family reunion, but we will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to speak about new clause 32, which would mean that people who are settled in the UK had that status automatically revoked in a wide range of circumstances. Irrespective of any other relevant factors, such as how long a person has lived here, settlement could be automatically revoked when a person earns less than £38,700, has received benefits or would not meet requirements for settlement that have subsequently changed.
We have heard important contributions from hon. Members across the Committee about why that is unworkable, for a range of reasons. I understand why the Government are seeking to bring this forward—[Interruption.] Sorry, the Opposition—it was a slip of the tongue. I also understand that the shadow Minister is seeking to continue his run of speeches—with his new tie today—in this Committee sitting, but let me lay out a couple of circumstances that clearly show that the new clause would be unworkable.
The proposals would create injustice in certain cases. People who are settled and have been paying tax and national insurance contributions for decades could have their settlement revoked because they temporarily fall on hard times. Let us imagine, for example, a couple—a British man with his American partner—who have been living together in this country for many years. He gets badly sick and he cannot work. She ends up having to look after him in local authority housing. I guess that under the Opposition’s rules, when he dies, she would be banned from settling in the UK. That is the sort of circumstance that would logically follow.
It is important to note as well that most migrants become eligible to access public funds only at the point at which they gain settlement—mainly ILR. The expectation is that temporary migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and to accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That approach reflects the need to maintain the general public’s confidence that immigration brings benefits to our country, rather than costs to the public purse. I can understand that as an underlying driver for some of today’s debate, but it is important that we keep this in the context of an immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. The no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing principle adopted by successive Governments. There is also an ability to apply for the no recourse to public funds condition to be lifted in certain circumstances, so there are safeguards for the most vulnerable.
Let me turn to the new clause’s other core condition, on revoking the ILR of a “foreign criminal”—the shadow Minister referred specifically to that. As we have said before, and throughout this Committee, settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement. Settlement conveys significant benefits and provides a pathway to British citizenship. Settlement can be revoked for criminality, deception or fraud in obtaining settlement, or other significant non-conducive reasons. A person’s settlement is also invalidated if they are deported. The Government have been clear—in fact, we could not have been clearer—that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK whenever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.
I want to emphasise another point—Government Members, in particular, have mentioned this—about the figures from the Centre for Policy Studies. It is worth repeating that figures in that report refer to a period of historically high levels of net migration under the previous Government. For that and many other reasons, they are not a sound basis for an evidence-based discussion.
Seema Malhotra
I just mention that we have the upcoming immigration White Paper, in which we will set out our approach to the immigration system and how to support it to be better controlled and managed for the future. We are clear that net migration must come down. She will know that under the previous Government—to which she was a special adviser—between 2019 and 2024, net migration almost quadrupled. That was heavily driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment. A properly controlled and managed immigration system, alongside strong border security, is one of the foundations of the Government’s plan for change. It is extremely important to have a debate based on tackling those root causes and issues, rather than tinkering around the edges and having a scenario in which the partner of a British citizen, who subsequently falls ill and dies, has her ILR revoked. It is important to understand what the Opposition tabling such amendments means for people’s lives and fairness in our society.
Tom Hayes
Briefly, prompted by the Opposition, we are inching towards a more interesting debate, on how to assess the financial benefits and costs of migration, while grounding that in available and high-quality data. In 2021, in Australia, the Treasury undertook a fiscal assessment and has repeated that annually. I know, too, that the Migration Advisory Committee is looking to improve the quality of data, because over 14 years we have had such poor-quality data on which to make assessments. It is starting to look at different categories of workers in order to assess whether they are net contributors or net drags. That is a really positive step.
One of the reasons why we are relying on “best” or “only” reports is because we had a Government who could have improved the quality of the data to make managed assessments of what controlled immigration that benefits our economy would look like, but instead, unfortunately, we had the borders thrown open with no sense of what our economy ought to be or what the skills ought to be, which is regrettable. Will the Minister comment on the importance of the White Paper to drive forward the immigration system that we actually need, grounded in the data that we need?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend highlights a crucial point about the importance of evidence-based policy and of good data, which was sorely lacking across the whole immigration system when we came into office. The utter chaos, with backlogs in every part of the system, put huge pressure on it and made it much harder to get information about where the backlogs were and who was in them in order to try to exert some control over the system and get that important data to inform future policy.
My hon. Friend is right to point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which continues to do important work to engage with stakeholders and to work across Government. That is an important part of the work that we are doing to use evidence in a much better way to inform how we link skills policy and visa policy. The work to restore order to our immigration system has been under way since we came into office. We will set out our approach, as he has intimated, in our upcoming immigration White Paper. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to explain why we will not support the amendment, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Stockton West may wish to withdraw it.
Katie Lam
I welcome the Minister’s response, particularly her words about the importance of settlement and citizenship being earned. The Opposition are excited to see the immigration White Paper, and particularly any data and fiscal impact analyses that it may contain. I apologise if this information is already publicly available and I am not aware of it, but can the Minister tell us when the White Paper is due to be published? Can she also set out a scenario in which it would be preferable for a foreign criminal to remain in this country after having been convicted of a crime, and why she considers the new clause to be unworkable?
Seema Malhotra
We have said that we hope to publish the immigration White Paper later in the spring. I have made some remarks in relation to foreign criminals; the Government are clear that they should be deported from the UK whenever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Member for that point. I have laid out the argument about needing an immigration system that is subject to rules and that can recognise different circumstances. I have also laid out the point about foreign criminals and where it is legal to deport them. Anyone who is convicted of a crime is considered for that.
The hon. Member will also understand that there can be complexity in people’s arrangements. Anything that becomes automatic in the way that she describes needs to be subject to much more debate than a new clause in this Bill Committee. We are not debating immigration; we are debating a system to stop the gangs and improve our border security. It is important that we see the purpose for which this legislation has been designed.
Chris Murray
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Weald of Kent setting out her argument articulately, and it was good to hear her say that she recognises that the last Government made a lot of mistakes on immigration, and that the evidence shows that. Sadly, although it is good to have that recognition, it does not seem as though very much has been learned from the Conservatives’ experience in office, based on each of the new clauses that they have set out.
First, on the spousal visas, quite a lot of what is in new clause 35 actually exists already. There are already salary thresholds and things like that. It is unlike me to praise the previous Conservative Government on immigration, but, actually, across previous Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, very good work has been done on issues such as sham and forced marriages. What is new in new clause 35, which is a very strange and horrible power to give Ministers, is the ability to either restrict the nationalities that British people can marry or set thresholds on them. I have huge respect for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, but I do not think that they should be able to choose what nationalities I am allowed to marry. We got rid of anti-miscegenation laws in the 20th century; we do not want returning through the back door, through measures such as this. Most of all, this arbitrary figure of 7% is very strange; if I were to marry, say, an Australian or an American, I would have to hope that I was not in the 8th percentile of people to do that. That would be a very strange way for us to ask British citizens to live their lives and fall in love with people.
Opposition Members also made the point about how the legislation needs to look backwards and make sure that migrants are net fiscal contributors over their lifetimes. I would say, again, that that is not a realistic thing to ask Governments to do. We will only know whether we have been net fiscal contributors when we die, so we cannot really ask people to make those projections.
Finally, there is the numerical visa cap in new clause 40. Again, that is a gimmick that is not addressing the actual structural problems in the immigration system. First, it treats all migrants the same, as one big monolithic whole, yet we know that the impact of migrants on communities is different, whether they are spouses, students, doctors, lorry drivers or refugees.
If we are going to have this kind of cap, how do we prioritise? Will it apply throughout the whole of the year? How will businesses plan if they want to recruit from overseas? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, what if emergencies mean that there are more people coming in? The last Conservative Government set a cap for tier 2 visas, then, of course, ended up hitting it and just exempting doctors and nurses from it anyway. Is it not inevitable that we will just be condemned to repeat history if we do that here? We have talked a lot about public trust in the immigration system and how that has been so deeply sapped by failures on immigration policy. The Conservatives had a net migration target of 100,000 a year, which they consistently failed to meet and had to revise. This proposal is just advocating that we repeat that exact mistake, but hoping for a different outcome, which seems bonkers to me.
Seema Malhotra
A number of the issues raised regarding these new clauses have already been debated in relation to other measures, so I will keep my remarks fairly brief on some of the additional issues.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 38 would require the Government to make changes to arrangements for leave outside the immigration rules. It would require the Secretary of State, within three months of the passing of this Act, to consult on reforms to arrangements for leave outside the immigration rules. The consultation must consider how best to ensure that leave outside the rules is granted only in the most exceptional circumstances, in which a reasonable person would consider it unacceptable to refuse entry to the United Kingdom. Within 18 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make changes to the immigration rules to implement the required reforms to leave outside the rules.
We have tabled this new clause because we are concerned about the Government’s response to the recent decision in the upper tribunal to allow a family from Gaza to obtain permission to come to this country using the Ukraine family scheme. The appellants were Palestinians who, at the time of the decision under challenge, were residing in al-Mawasi, the humanitarian zone of Gaza.
The first and second appellants were husband and wife, and had lived in Gaza since 1994. They were the parents of the remaining four appellants, who at the time of the decision were 18, 17, eight and seven years of age. The sponsor for the application was the first appellant’s brother, who had moved to the United Kingdom in 2007 and is now a British citizen.
The first-tier tribunal declined the application and the decision was appealed. The main issues to be decided by the first-tier tribunal were whether there was family life under article 8(1) between the appellants and the sponsor in the UK, whether the respondent’s decision interfered with any family life and/or any private life enjoyed by the sponsor, and whether any such interference was disproportionate.
The upper tribunal did not agree with the Home Office’s argument that the first-tier tribunal judge had erred in finding that there was family life between the appellants and sponsor. It found that there was family life and that the Home Office decision not to allow the family leave outside the rules was a disproportionate interference with the family life of the appellants and the sponsor.
When the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister about this particular case at Prime Minister’s questions, he responded that he did not agree with the decision of the upper tribunal, and said that the Government were
“looking at the legal loophole that we need to close in this particular case.” —[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 249.]
The new clause makes a suggestion about what that “legal loophole” might be, but it is extremely important that the Minister is able to answer the following questions. Did the Home Office decide not to appeal the upper tribunal decision? If so, why? What is the legal loophole that the Prime Minister said the Home Secretary was closing? Can the Minister be extremely precise about that, please? Can she explain when the House will be updated on this issue? Finally, if there is a legal loophole to close, why is that not being done through this Bill?
Seema Malhotra
I find this a very interesting debate and an important one in a number of respects. New clause 38 would require a consultation on the Government’s approach to the exercise of discretion to grant leave outside the rules in what any reasonable person would consider to be the most exceptional circumstances to warrant such a grant, with a requirement for a change to the rules to follow, to regulate on the basis of what discretion may have been exercised.
The rules set out the main purposes for which a person may enter or stay in the UK, and the requirements to be met for them to be granted permission to do so. Exceptional circumstances are already considered. The rules are intended to apply, and be applied, in most circumstances to ensure transparency and fairness between individuals, but the existing policy approach recognises that there are some circumstances that they simply cannot cater for, and it is in the most exceptional circumstances that consideration is given to leave outside the rules under the Immigration Act 1971.
A period of leave outside the rules would usually be granted for a short, one-off period of permission to stay, suitable to accommodate or overcome the exceptional circumstance, if compassionate or compelling grounds are raised in the individual case. A person may request an exercise of discretion. Factors considered may be related to, for example, emergencies, unexpected events, a crisis, a disaster, an accident that could not have been anticipated, or a personal tragedy. The Government will continue to consider where and when there is need to exercise discretion outside the rules. By its very nature, that is considered only in the most exceptional of circumstances.
It is probably not appropriate for me to go into the case that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised, beyond what has been said in the House. He asked some very specific questions, and I am happy to come back to him with what I can in writing. It is important to say that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for discretion to grant leave outside the immigration rules, nor is it the correct place to define the parts of immigration policy on which the Government should consult.
Matt Vickers
On that case and on the loophole, which Minister does not think is relevant to this legislation, what does she identify that loophole as, and why does she not feel that that broader issue is relevant in considering this Bill?
Seema Malhotra
The shadow Minister understands extremely well that the Bill is about ensuring we stop the criminal gangs and that it introduces new powers to do so. On other new clauses that he tabled, I have given the same response in relation to aspects of the immigration rules. This is not the correct legislation to define parts of immigration policy or to try to determine what the Government should consult on.
As I said, the Government continue to consider where and when there is a need to exercise discretion outside the rules. By its very nature, that is considered in only very exceptional circumstances. I have shared what some of those factors might be: unexpected events, a crisis, an accident that could not have been anticipated, or a personal tragedy. I am sure he understands those matters, considering that he has served in office.
Matt Vickers
This is a valuable and important debate because many people felt strongly about this issue. The decision in that case flew in the face of the values of the Ukraine scheme. It could undermine commitments to future such schemes, so it is of great consequence.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. I am not disputing that there can be a debate on them. What I am saying is that the Bill has a clear and defined purpose, and it would not be appropriate to extend it to be more than what it is designed to be when there are other mechanisms by which immigration rules are debated in the House.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the shadow Minister for asking what the Bill is about, but we are just at the end of scrutiny of it, so I am sure she is aware that it is about increasing powers, in particular, to be able to better tackle the criminal gangs that are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We are making sure that we have bodies such as the Border Security Command on a statutory footing. We have had many other debates in the House about this.
Matt Vickers
Often with amendments we want to bring things out into the light. One thing I have not quite heard is what the Government are doing in the light of the issues with the Ukraine scheme, in particular to prevent what happened in the case I mentioned from happening again. We have this big borders Bill coming through, which will hopefully be the answer to the world’s problems and improve the situation, but are the Government doing anything about the misapplication of the Ukraine scheme to ensure that the case I mentioned will not happen again?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman is right, and the Prime Minister laid out the view that it was the wrong decision. We do need to find a way to tighten up how Parliament understands the rules and how they are interpreted, but as I say, that scheme is not a matter for this Bill. We are at the very end of debating the Bill and now I am being asked what it is for. I am sure that the shadow Ministers do not want to go all the way through the line-by-line debate again. Suffice it to say that the matters they are seeking to extend the legislation to cover stray into broader aspects of immigration that in our view are not appropriate for inclusion in this Bill. There are other mechanisms for us to seek to debate and change immigration rules.
Katie Lam
I thank the Minister for responding to me earlier. The Opposition’s view is that the various ways by which people come here illegally and stay is fundamentally important to smashing the gangs, and that leave outside the rules and the ways it may be abused are a big part of that. That seems to us to be part of the fundamental point that we are discussing. Will the Minister comment on that?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady is right. I have raised a number of times during the debate we have had the ways in which we see routes abused; indeed, the way that routes have been designed has left them open to more abuse. We are now reaping the results of that, in terms of some of the measures and the tightening up that we are doing. She will be aware that we have raised this as a matter that it is important for us to bring under greater control as part of an immigration system that is fit for the future and more controlled, more managed and fairer, and the aspects that we believe can and should be considered for a future immigration system will be the subject of the immigration White Paper. I look forward to debating that with her.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Seema Malhotra ExcerptsTuesday 18th March 2025
(1 month 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 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to make a few remarks at the end of this interesting debate. I will make a few general comments first and then make more detailed comments on new clause 25.
It is worth re-stating some of the shadow Minister’s points. He said that, for too long, we have had an open-door policy that is open to abuse. He also said that we should remember that we are in government. He is absolutely right that the Tories lost control over our immigration system. We do not need reminding of that—nor do we need reminding that we are in government clearing up their mess.
The context for a lot of the debate today has been the massive backlogs that have built up in every part of the system, the failure to have controls over our system, the levels of abuse and the fall in returns for those who have no right to be here. It is worth mentioning that the steady increase in settlement grants in 2017 reflects high levels of migration in previous years. It is almost as if the Tories are attempting to close the gates to the field from which the horses have long bolted, and everyone else is now picking up the pieces.
It is worth correcting the impression that the shadow Minister gives about our policy. We agree that settlement in the UK is a privilege; it is not an automatic entitlement. However, we understand that the immigration system needs to account for people in a range of circumstances beyond those specified in new clause 25. We also recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country and believe that the immigration system needs to be much better controlled and managed.
Provisions for settlement are set out in the immigration rules, so the Bill is not the correct legislation for debate about requirements for settlement. What we are doing with this Bill is strengthening our borders, going after the criminal smuggling gangs that have caused so much damage to the lives of migrants already and put lives at risk daily, and securing our borders against systemic abuse.
New clause 25 would restrict settlement in the UK to a handful of economic routes and partners of British citizens. Other routes to settlement in the current immigration system would therefore be excluded from settlement should the new clause be accepted, including settlement for refugees. The shadow Minister may have a view about, for example, a situation facing an Afghan interpreter for the British armed forces who put their life at risk, was evacuated to the UK after the chaos in Kabul in 2020 and was then put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation after arrival in the UK. Correct me if I am wrong, but under clause 25 they would be banned from ever settling in the UK.
It is important that we understand that settlement in the UK is privilege, the argument for which was rightly made. It is right because settlement conveys significant benefits, including the right to live here permanently and to access work, study and public funds, as well as a pathway to citizenship. We also have rules and processes to recognise the expectation that people should serve a period with temporary permission before being eligible to apply for settlement.
There is a range of periods of time that people need to spend in the UK before they can qualify for settlement. Many are five years, but there are shorter periods for exceptional routes. The hon. Member for Stockton West did not lay out his view on some of those specialised routes that may offer a shorter path to settlement, such as the global talent route or the innovator founder route. They allow settlement within three years to help the UK to attract the best talent from around the world, and they reward those working in business who are making some of the greatest economic contributions.
While I want to quote from the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute, as they are the most important references in these debates, the new clause does not really think through the immigration system as a whole. We must think about it being fairer, more controlled and managed, and we must ensure that it recovers from the chaos that the last Government left it in. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Stockton West will know, the Government will also set out our approach to immigration, including how we bring net migration down and how we link skills policy with visa policy, so that we reduce our dependence on recruiting from overseas. We will be setting out that coherent approach to a future immigration system in a White Paper that is coming out later this spring.
Matt Vickers
I am stunned—shocked. In fact, I cannot believe that the SNP is less than enthusiastic about our new clause. The Minister and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw were keen to talk about records, but at the risk of repeating myself, immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it. I would love for the Government to succeed in doing so, but I am not convinced that they will, particularly without a robust deterrent. I say it again: since this Government were elected, the number of people arriving here illegally is up 28%, and the number of people in hotels is up 29%. There are 8,500 more people in hotels in communities across the country, and fewer of those people who arrive by small boat are being returned.
Seema Malhotra
Does the shadow Minister also agree that, since we came into government to the end of January, returns were almost 19,000, which is up around a fifth on what they were 12 years before, including an increase of about a quarter on enforced returns? He may want to talk more about that.
Matt Vickers
I am sure the Minister will agree that a large part of those are voluntary returns. I am sure a large part of them may also benefit from some of the agreements made by the previous Government. Actually, when we talk about the people arriving here illegally on small boats, the number is up significantly in the last two quarters, since this Government came into office. That is a fact.
Oral Answers to Questions
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
Settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement. There is already a range of periods of time that people are required to spend in the UK before they qualify for settlement. The number of people granted settlement each year will reflect the number of migrants coming to the UK in earlier years. This Government are determined to bring control to the immigration system and to bring net migration down, and we keep all our policies under review.
Mike Wood
There is clearly a cost to doing nothing about the current indefinite leave to remain policy, and a recent Centre for Policy Studies report estimates the net lifetime cost as £234 billion for those expected to be granted ILR over the next five years. What is the Minister’s assessment of that cost?
Seema Malhotra
I gently say to the hon. Member that the number of settlement grants grew by almost a third in the final year that his party was in government, compared with 2023. We will take absolutely no lessons from the Tory party and a shadow Home Secretary who completely lost control of our borders, allowing net migration to quadruple to a record high of nearly 1 million while the number of dangerous boat crossings soared.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Only refugees whose cases prove that they would be at harm if they returned home are given indefinite leave to remain in this country—30,000 people last year. They will not leave the United Kingdom to return to the bombs and the dictators, but without a route to citizenship they will find it harder to get a job to support their families, get a mortgage, or have a say in their local communities. Will the Minister meet me, and other MPs who are concerned about the new guidance on naturalisation, to talk about how we can properly support integration in the UK?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will know that, for many generations, refugees who have arrived for resettlement in the UK have been able to apply for British citizenship if they meet the conditions, and that continues to be the case. The UK must always do its bit to support those who are fleeing persecution, but we are also clear that we must do all we can to prevent people from making dangerous boat crossings and risking their lives in the arms of criminal gangs.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As we have heard, according to the Centre for Policy Studies, over 800,000 migrants from the past five years could soon claim indefinite leave to remain. In NHS care, benefits, social housing and more, that will cost £234 billion—nearly six years of defence spending, or almost all income tax receipts for a year. Will the Minister commit to extending the qualifying period for ILR, or will she accept that the consequence of her policy is a liability for the public of hundreds of billions of pounds?
Seema Malhotra
I am still quite flabbergasted by the questions that the Conservatives ask in the House. Their party saw net migration more than quadruple to record levels. The shadow Minister will know that the Prime Minister has also pledged a White Paper on reducing net migration—that was at the end of last year—and work is under way to consider a range of proposals, including how better to support the integration and employability of refugees.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and if he wants to write to me about that case, I will be very happy to look at it.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister recently said he was:
“hardwiring growth into all the decisions of the Cabinet”.
How did he react when the Home Secretary told him that her policy on electronic travel authorisations would cost the economy nearly £735 million over five years?
Seema Malhotra
We are introducing electronic travel authorisations in line with the approach of our international partners such as Australia and the USA, who have also been looking at how to enhance their ability to pre-screen travellers upstream, to stop those who pose a threat from travelling to the UK. As the former immigration Minister and now shadow Secretary of State of Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said at the time:
“ETAs will enhance our border security by increasing our knowledge about those seeking to come to the UK and preventing the arrival of those who pose a threat.”
If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with him, I suggest they have a catch-up. Perhaps the Conservative party will have worked out by then where it stands on the policy.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
This Labour Government are determined to put right the appalling injustice suffered by members of the Windrush community. We will ensure that those affected receive the compensation they deserve, and that cultural change is embedded permanently in the Home Office. At the end of November 2024, over £100 million has been paid to individuals across almost 3,000 claims under the Windrush compensation scheme. We have also re-established the Windrush unit to drive forward the action needed to ensure that what happened to the Windrush generation never happens again.
Harpreet Uppal
Members of the Windrush generation who struggle to submit compensation claims do not have access to legal aid, leaving them unable to navigate the complex process. I have recently been contacted by a constituent who is struggling to navigate the claims process, and has no other support available to him. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle those barriers, and will she commit to providing additional support to ensure that every eligible individual can access the scheme, regardless of their capacity or circumstances?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are committed to making changes so that the scheme is accessible and so victims of the Windrush scandal are far better supported in applying for compensation. It is why, in July, we brought in a single named caseworker approach to streamline the process, improve consistency and remove duplication, and it is why we announced £1.5 million of grant funding for organisations to provide extra support for applicants. If she would like to meet to discuss her constituent’s case further, I would be happy to do so.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Windrush scandal involved people coming to this country in good faith who were then falsely labelled as illegal immigrants. One thing that the Minister could do to avoid such circumstances happening again is make it easier for people to come here through a reduction in the English language requirement. Is that something that she would consider?
Seema Malhotra
Our priority is to understand and learn from the events in the past and focus on the future by ensuring that the Department is inclusive and considers the impact of all its work on people from every background.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The Government are committed to bringing down net migration after it hit record highs under the last Government. We will do that by taking a different approach, linking skills and migration policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to tackling workforce problems in the UK. The Home Office publishes migrant journey analysis, which shows the proportion of migrants granted indefinite leave to remain over time, helping to inform on who might seek to remain in the UK in the long term.
Jack Rankin
The mass import of low-skilled workers could cost the taxpayer more than £61 billion—a financial ticking time bomb. Will the Minister commit here and now to extending the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain or bringing in new qualifying criteria?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman would do well to hold his own side to account for their record on net migration. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. There is always a place for overseas recruitment for firms looking to grow, but it must not be the first port of call, and we must ensure that our migration system is controlled, managed and fair.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Since the Government came to office, 23,000 illegal migrants have crossed the English channel—an increase of 29% compared with the same time last year. Do the Government now accept the National Crime Agency’s advice that a deterrent like the Rwanda scheme, which they cancelled before it even started, is needed? Last week, the Government were trumpeting their removals figures. Will they honestly accept that only a tiny fraction of removals relate to people who arrived by small boat? In fact, in their first three months, the removals amounted to only 5% of people who entered the UK by small boat. Will the Minister accept that allowing 95% of small boat arrivals to stay is no deterrent at all?
Seema Malhotra
The shadow Home Secretary appears to have forgotten what happened when he was in Government. In fact, he will know that for the first six months of last year the numbers of those arriving on small boats was the highest for any six months on record. He will know that the previous Government spent over £700 million on a failed Rwanda scheme that saw four volunteers go to Rwanda. I will not take any lessons from the shadow Home Secretary. The Conservatives should take responsibility for their record and apologise for it.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I will shortly be visiting Scotland to discuss these issues. The hon. Member will know that we will not be introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy. He will also know that the Migration Advisory Committee has found that labour market needs are similar across the UK. It continues to engage at length with many UK stakeholders, including from Scotland.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Seema Malhotra
The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. The scheme will provide an additional 18 months’ temporary permission to Ukrainians here under one of the existing Ukraine schemes. When a person’s Ukraine scheme leave expires during their course and they are granted further leave to remain—for example, on a student visa—they will continue to be able to complete their studies. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Since October 2023, my constituent has been separated from her husband and the father of her children, who is a Palestinian citizen of the state of Israel. I have deep concerns about the Home Office’s handling of this case, and it has not replied to my last two representations. Will the Minister agree to look into this case?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case, and I am very happy to meet him to discuss the issues he has raised.
Oral Answers to Questions
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
We are determined to honour our commitment to those who supported us in Afghanistan and who stood up for freedom and democracy, placing their own lives at risk. To date, the Afghan schemes have brought over 32,000 people to safety in the UK, including thousands through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We aim to continue to relocate eligible individuals through our established schemes as quickly as possible.
Wendy Chamberlain
A major issue of concern for Afghans who have been here since the opening of the scheme is that their residency permits are now up for renewal. I am sure the Government do not want to render illegal those whom we welcomed to the UK. Can we have some guidance from the Home Office about some of the questions that people have asked me: where do people go for renewal; how is the Home Office responding to those who have had several changes of address; and if there is a cost, what happens to those who cannot pay?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and for all her work for those who are here from Afghanistan. We continue to seek to email and notify all individuals currently resettled in the UK whom we are aware of, and I will certainly continue to discuss with her the methods we are using for those facing other issues.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My constituent Dr Lubna Hadoura is an NHS consultant who desperately wants to be able to care for her 80-year-old mother, a refugee displaced from Gaza earlier this year who is now alone in Egypt and unable to care for herself. Will the Minister assure me that her application for an adult dependent relative visa will be carefully, humanely and properly considered?
Mr Speaker
I am not quite sure that that is actually about the resettlement scheme, but okay.
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The death and destruction in Gaza are intolerable, and I assure her that that application is being looked at very closely and she should be receiving an update very soon.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The death and destruction in Gaza are intolerable. Palestinians who wish to join family members in the UK must do so via the range of existing routes that are available, but if my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific matter with me, I shall be happy to meet her.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
What steps is the Minister taking to tackle crime in rural areas?
Oral Answers to Questions
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on a number of occasions. He will be aware that we are not introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy, and this has been made clear to the Scottish Government. Instead, we must together address the underlying causes of skills shortages and overseas recruitment in different parts of the UK, which this Government are doing.
Pete Wishart
I thank the Minister for her tiresome and repetitive response. She will know that Scotland has a whole range of demographic and population difficulties that need to be urgently addressed, with every sector from social care to hospitality, including business leaders, calling out for drastic action. Even her Scottish Labour colleagues are beginning to understand the enormity of this task. Today we find that Labour’s grotesque two-child benefit cap is now having an impact on Scotland’s birth rate. Instead of slapping down her Scottish colleagues and rejecting this idea out of hand, why does she not work with us just to see if it might actually work?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman knows that net migration must come down. It trebled under the last Government, largely driven by overseas recruitment. Immigration is a reserved matter, working in the interests of the whole UK. Previous schemes along the lines that he has suggested have succeeded only in restricting movement and rights and creating internal UK borders. Adding different rules for different locations would also increase complexity and create frictions when workers move locations.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Scotland is a diverse place. Some areas are seeing depopulation, but areas such as East Lothian, which I represent, are seeing unprecedented population growth. Will the Minister commit to working constructively with the Scottish Government on their woeful population strategy, which in 17 years has comprehensively failed to address Scotland’s demographic challenges?
Seema Malhotra
We are committed to working with the Scottish Government on this and all issues. Indeed, many of the levers to address depopulation in Scotland are in powers that the Scottish Government already have at their disposal. The reasons for local workers leaving particular areas must be addressed through investment in jobs, in infrastructure and in public services, and many of these are issues that we must tackle together.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
The Government are committed to bringing down legal migration. We will do so by making sure that British workers are upskilled in key sectors, with new requirements for employers to address skills shortages, and by introducing new training and workforce plans so that overseas recruitment does not remain the default for filling skills shortages in the UK.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I put on record my gratitude to the Home Secretary and her team for releasing the Home Office commissioned report, “The Historical Roots of the Windrush Scandal”, which concluded that 30 years of racist immigration legislation caused the Windrush scandal. Those now on the Opposition Benches spent three years trying to suppress that report. Will the Home Secretary meet me, other MPs and civil society representatives to discuss its recommendations?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It was a shocking report, and one that the previous Government refused to publish. I would be very happy to meet him and other hon. Members to discuss it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Does the Home Secretary share my deep concerns about two-tier justice, given that some people who say some bad, stupid things on social media can be arrested, charged and jailed within a matter of weeks, but some people who brutally and violently assault police officers have not even been charged many months later?
Draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
As a number of Members here have not been on a Statutory Instrument Committee before, I will say that the procedure is very similar to that of the Chamber. If you want to catch my eye, stand up. It is straightforward. There is one minor difficulty: my notes tell me that the Liberal Democrat Helen Maguire is a member of the Committee, and Ben Maguire has turned up. I will clarify whether that was a mistake or whether my notes are accurate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The order amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, or the 2003 order for short, to support the Government’s preferred model for the French delivery of the EU entry-exit system, or EES, in Dover. EES is the EU’s new border entry system, which is due to be implemented on 10 November. It is driven primarily by a desire for greater border security and a more secure Europe. The UK Government are supportive of the aims of the EES, which complement our shared objectives on migration and secure borders. We have been working at pace and closely with our French and EU partners, as well as with industry and across the UK Government, to ensure readiness. I am grateful to parties for their constructive and collaborative approach. It is our goal to do everything possible to maintain border fluidity with the European Union when the EES is introduced.
EES requires that non-EU citizens who wish to enter the Schengen area, excluding EU residents, visa holders and those protected by the withdrawal agreement, provide their fingerprints and a facial scan to EU border officials and answer questions about their stay. This will increase the time taken to complete the Schengen entry process.
As immigration controls in Dover are juxtaposed, non-EU citizens, which include most British nationals, will provide these details to officers of the French Police aux Frontières. PAF officers conduct Schengen entry checks in a control zone at the eastern docks in the Port of Dover, which is a confined space with large volumes of freight and passenger traffic, particularly at peak times. If that continues once EES is implemented, there is likely to be severe congestion and disruption at the port. The Government have therefore engaged constructively with France and the EU to explore mitigations.
France has agreed for PAF officers to complete EES checks for coaches in an additional control zone at the western docks. That approach will ensure there is sufficient capacity to conduct EES checks on coaches, which is not available at the eastern docks. France has requested two changes to ensure that PAF officers can operate the controls effectively: first, that PAF officers can travel between control zones with their service weapons; and, secondly, that PAF officers must be able to escort detained persons whom they have arrested following immigration examination in the new control zone at the western docks to the control zone at the eastern docks, where they currently carry out their immigration controls in full.
Government officials have also consulted all the relevant stakeholders, including Kent police, on France’s requirements. Senior officials are satisfied that the risks are minimal and can be managed through appropriate safeguards and standard operating procedures. The PAF has agreed to those, and the Government have agreed to France’s requests. The order, therefore, creates a circulation area, which will be a section of the A20 public road approximately 1.5 miles long, linking the new French control zone at the western docks with the existing control zone in Dover. It will also enable PAF officers to travel between control zones via the circulation area, and it will extend certain powers and provisions in the 2003 order, which are currently only applicable in a control zone, to the circulation area. Therefore, PAF officers will be permitted to travel with their service weapons, in the circulation area only, between control zones. PAF officers will also be able to escort detained persons between control zones. They will not be able to arrest or detain anyone in the circulation area who has not already been detained by them in the exercise of their functions within a control zone.
When PAF officers escort a detained person in the circulation area, certain provisions will apply, just as they do when officers exercise the power to detain in a control zone. Specifically, PAF officers will be protected against acts or omissions committed against them that constitute offences under an immigration control enactment—for example, assault or obstruction—in the same way that British immigration officers are protected against those. They also cannot be prosecuted for any offence committed when they are exercising their lawful powers under the 2003 order in the circulation area. Additionally, the procedure concerning the arrest of a PAF officer for acts performed in a control zone will also apply to PAF officers exercising the power to escort detained persons in the circulation area.
Finally, any claim for compensation alleged against, or by, PAF officers for loss or injury when they exercise their powers in the circulation area will be subject to the law of the French Republic. This matches the provisions that currently operate in the control zone.
Government officials will separately delimit an additional control zone at the western docks by way of administrative arrangement. In that control zone, PAF officers can exercise their full range of immigration frontier control powers in the same way as they do in the control zone at the eastern docks. They can also carry and store their service weapons, subject to strict safeguards, as they do in the existing control zone. The circulation area in which PAF officers can travel between control zones will also be delimited by way of a clear map of the relevant area. Additionally, the conditions under which PAF officers may carry their service weapons on any journey through the circulation area will be set out in a service weapons agreement.
This order is therefore a key enabler of the western docks operation. It facilitates a relatively minor change to long-established French practice at the juxtaposed controls in Dover so that PAF officers can operate in an additional control zone. This will make a material difference once the EU entry-exit system is implemented. It is in both the UK’s and France’s interests that any disruption in Dover caused by EES is minimised, and the Government consider this order to be a reasonable and proportionate way of helping to achieve that aim. I commend the order to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, we have had a message and Ben Maguire is a member of the Committee, so that has been clarified.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful to the Opposition spokespeople for their comments. I gently say to the shadow Minister that the Government now have a much clearer plan for how we tackle irregular migration. I am proud that we have set up the border security command, with work going on internationally to try and tackle the criminal gangs that, as he knows, are exploiting thousands of people and putting their lives at risk. It is vital that immigration is controlled and managed, and I am sure he will want to work with the Government on the measures we are putting in place.
The shadow Minister asked a set of questions about the impact of the provisions. It would be sensible to come back to him in writing, because that would enable us to share the response with colleagues who are concerned and minded to ask about similar matters. On the matter of partnership, that is an important way in which we continue to work with our French counterparts, not least because we also operate our Border Force in juxtaposed ports in the EU. It is vital that we work together on securing our borders and maintaining their fluidity throughout the implementation of EES, because that is in all our interests.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Depopulation
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(7 months, 1 week 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 Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on his successful securing of this debate. I am extremely grateful to him and to right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I will mention those who have made substantial contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Hexham (Joe Morris), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I acknowledge the contributions from the Opposition leads as well, including the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).
I want to address many of the issues raised in today’s debate, which has focused on a range of key points and has brought together the challenges and consequences of depopulation in an important and effective way. I am heartened by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar also saying that he recognises this is an issue that goes way beyond the Home Office and that he plans to raise a number of the challenges with other Departments. I encourage him to do so.
The Government recognise the importance of this debate, and the challenges faced by rural and island communities in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and more widely across the United Kingdom in Wales and England. Those challenges are now coming to workforces, and are about supporting local and national economies, as well as encouraging young people to feel that they have opportunity in the areas where they grew up. A range of issues was raised and important points were extremely well made, including on some of the generational shifts that are having impacts on families, as well as community cohesion, wider integration and the continued success of local services, the challenges in recruitment across primary local sectors and public services, and the running of our local communities.
One of the points raised was in relation to the fishing and fish-processing industries, which is of concern to many colleagues in Scotland. We recognise the contribution of those industries to the lifeblood of our nation, including to coastal and rural communities. Those industries generate almost £2 billion in exports. We recognise the challenges of recruiting domestically. Those and other valuable jobs are often done in difficult circumstances. As has been discussed, there has been a reliance on migration over recent years.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Under the last Conservative Government, too often we saw rampant exploitation of migrant workers in the seasonal workers scheme. Does the Minister share my concerns about such labour exploitation, and will she work with me on novel ideas to tackle it?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for making that serious point, one that I will draw on in my remarks. I will continue to work with him and others on how we tackle that serious issue.
Migration has been an important part of the history of our nation, as was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will know, as I do, that for generations people have travelled here from all over the world, contributing to our economy, studying in our universities, working in our public services and being part of our communities and the way we have built our nation together. All of us here are alive to the demographic challenges that remote communities particularly are facing. We are also committed to ensuring that the immigration system works in the interests of the whole of the UK.
We have seen net migration treble in five years, driven largely by a big increase in overseas recruitment. We are clear that net migration must come down, and that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed. I make that point because it is for that reason we are setting out a new approach, which is integral to tackling some of the challenges outlined today. We will link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK.
Seema Malhotra
I have to make my remarks, and the right hon. Member has spoken. I will come back if I have time.
On the vision of developing more sustainable alternatives to labour market issues, I am sure that we are all keen to work together. There is no other way. That is why I have asked my officials to work closely with Seafish, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government to address the issues facing the sector and our rural communities, and to make sure we are building together a more sustainable workforce and community.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the Minister to her position. I apologise for not doing so earlier; I wish her well in her job. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I have pursued the issue of visas for fishermen across the sea—in Northern Ireland, my villages of Portavogie, Kilkeel and Ardglass are examples —as has the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart). Along the line, we have always had verbal commitments, but we have never seen action to make visas more acceptable for skilled workers so that small fishing villages such as Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel can survive. The Minister might wish to continue pursuing that, if it is agreeable.
Seema Malhotra
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I make the point that it is important that we work closely across Westminster and with our devolved Administrations. This is part of an important reset, and it is important that we look at how we tackle these challenges together. Many of the issues that have been raised are matters for the Scottish Government and for local authorities in Scotland, but it is important that we look at how we work together across Westminster and with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have shared projects that are a success.
Mr Carmichael
I have said often enough that the medium to long-term structural problems in the catching sector for deckhands have to be solved by a better training programme, to make sure that we recruit from our own fishing and coastal communities. In the meantime, working together with the Scottish Government, where the responsibility lies, to bridge the gap with the availability of visas for incoming crew seems to me the perfect way in which the Governments here and in Edinburgh can work together to provide the industry with what it needs.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I shall be coming on to some of these issues in my remarks, but let me first talk briefly about the regional visa schemes that have been alluded to. I am aware that the devolved Government in Scotland retain a key interest in this, and in 2022 the Migration Advisory Committee suggested that the Government could explore the issue further. It is important to say that the MAC must hear the voices of our devolved Administrations across the country.
Proposals have included measures to restrict migrants to certain areas, but there is currently no legal basis to do so, even if we wanted to. Fundamentally, overseas recruits are likely to be affected by the same factors as anyone else when making decisions about whether to move into or remain in remote parts of the country. That means that jobs must be available that offer sustainable salaries and attractive working conditions, but we must also ensure affordable housing, transport links, suitable local infrastructure such as broadband, and childcare. So many of those issues affect where people choose to settle and to make communities their home.
Addressing such concerns, and thereby making challenging careers more attractive, has to be the focus of the work to tackle depopulation. Otherwise, even migrants drawn to the UK to perform these roles can leave their jobs and the area as soon as a more favourable opportunity becomes available. In some of the analysis of the Fresh Talent experience, that has been part of the story. It is important to learn lessons—
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Gentleman can come back to me later, but I need to continue my remarks, because I want to make the point that it is important for us to learn what has and has not worked in the UK, as well as learning from abroad.
The arguments in favour of legislating to enable rural communities to recruit and retain international recruits more easily are well intentioned, but could risk placing international recruits in a particularly vulnerable position, especially at a time when, as has been mentioned, we are looking to protect workers against exploitive practices in the care and fishing sectors and elsewhere in the economy. Previously suggested schemes for devolved migration controls would restrict their movement and rights. However, immigration is a national system, not a local one, and although we have routes and flexibilities in our immigration system, a range of issues have contributed to depopulation—a point that has been raised in this very effective debate—so we need a much more integrated strategy across Government and with the devolved Administrations. That is why it is important that it is taken further.
On housing, the Government have set out an overhaul of the planning system, and we have introduced new mandatory housing targets. We are looking at prioritising brownfield sites, and it is a key mission of ours to build 1.5 million affordable homes across the country. That is essential for the reasons that we have talked about, including stability for families and for our local economies.
I mentioned the need for a coherent link between our labour market and migration. Since the new Government came in, we have been working to establish a framework in which the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England, the Industrial Strategy Council and the Department for Work and Pensions will work together to address the issues facing the UK labour market, including skills gaps—
Seema Malhotra
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but I may answer his question with my next point.
Those bodies will also look at pay and conditions, economic activity and the role that migration can play in supporting that. In order to deliver on the Government’s missions, we need to tackle these challenges in all parts of the United Kingdom. The bodies must work closely with our devolved Governments, our combined authorities and local government to address these matters.
Ben Lake
The Minister has gone halfway to addressing the point that I wanted to raise. Australia, which has a federal system, operates a single immigration system, but the territories and states can nominate key critical shortage occupations to encourage and boost them. In her discussions with the devolved Administrations, will she bear in mind the experience of Australia and see whether its approach can be brought into the UK system?
Seema Malhotra
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I was pleased to visit Australia very briefly in May to talk about the work that is being done on skills there. I think it would help him to know that we have announced a new council of the nations and regions, and we are starting the process of establishing local growth plans and encouraging local authorities to take on more devolved power. He may want to contribute to some of those discussions.
I do not wish to test your patience, Ms Vaz, so I will conclude.
Seema Malhotra
I need to conclude in a couple of minutes.
A point was raised about the English language. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, as it helps visa holders to access services, participate in community life and work. Workers who do not have a good command of English are likely to be more vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. The level that we have set is B1 on the common European framework of reference for languages: lower intermediate English, which is more of a functional understanding. But there are gaps and we have more to do, beyond what we inherited.
On the broader point about depopulation, there are many ways in which the previous Government’s levelling-up agenda did not integrate and did not have a strategy for tackling all these issues together. That is why the work that we are doing across the country on devolution is an important part of how we move forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar again for securing this debate. I have heard and am grateful for the points that he and other Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government will work to continue to understand the issues that Members face in greater detail and will consider how best to work collectively to address them. We must and will remain open to international skills and talent, but I suggest that immigration is not the solution to depopulation, nor must it be used as an alternative to the important job of tackling skills and labour market failures here in the UK, around which we have set out a new approach.
Immigration Rules: Statement of Changes
Seema Malhotra Excerpts(7 months, 1 week 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 visa requirement on Jordan
We are today introducing a visa requirement on all visitors from Jordan. Nationals of Jordan 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 BST today.
Consequential to this, nationals of Jordan will no longer be eligible to travel to the UK with an electronic travel authorisation.
There will be a four-week, visa-free transition period for those who already hold an ETA and confirmed bookings to the UK obtained on or before 15:00 BST on 10 September 2024 where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 BST on 8 October 2024.
Arrangements are in place so that Jordanian nationals 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 Jordanian nationals travelling to the UK for purposes other than what is permitted under visitor rules since the visa requirement was lifted in February 2024. This has included a significant and sustained increase in asylum claims, and high rates of refusals at the border due to people travelling without the intention of visiting for a permitted purpose. This increase in asylum claims and refusals has added significantly to operational pressures at the border, resulting in frontline resource being diverted from other operational priorities.
The decision to introduce a visa requirement has been taken solely for migration and border security reasons. Our relationship with Jordan 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.
Implementation of the UK electronic travel authorisation scheme
On 25 October 2023, the UK electronic travel authorisation scheme was launched to secure our borders and make the UK safer, by enhancing our ability to screen travellers upstream. The scheme applies to those passengers visiting or transiting the UK, who do not currently need a visa for short stays and do not have a valid UK immigration status prior to travelling.
Currently, the ETA scheme applies to nationals of Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The Government will complete the implementation of the scheme, in a phased manner, to all remaining non-visa nationalities. In November 2024, the ETA scheme will open to all nationals travelling to the UK who do not currently need a visa, except Europeans, and it will be a travel requirement from 8 January 2025. In March 2025, the scheme will then be extended to European nationals and will be a requirement for travel from 2 April 2025, completing the roll-out of the ETA scheme. The complete list of ETA nationalities is detailed in the accompanying statement of changes at “Appendix ETA National List” at ETANL 1.1.
Once fully rolled out, the ETA scheme will close the current gap in advance permissions and mean that for the first time, we will have a comprehensive understanding of those travelling to the UK.
End diplomatic visa waivers and introduce a “diplomatic visa arrangement” visitor visa
The UK’s border is being transformed to include digital pre-travel checks. As part of this, diplomatic visa waivers are being phased out. “Diplomatic visa arrangement” visitor visas are being introduced to replace DVWs. DVAs will ensure diplomatic passport holders from countries that have benefited from DVW, who are nominated by their Governments through a note verbale, will continue to benefit from smooth and efficient access to the UK. DVAs will provide a bespoke visitor visa for eligible diplomatic passport holders. Applications will be made through a light-touch application form, but application fees and the requirement to submit fingerprints will be waived. The route aims to support and better facilitate diplomatic travel to the UK and will also enable DVA visitors to undertake a range of standard visitor activities. These changes will not impact accredited diplomats who are free, or “exempt” from immigration control.
Introduction of the VIP delegate visa
We are launching the VIP delegate visa, a bespoke visa product targeted at delegations accompanying foreign Heads of State and serving Government Ministers on official visits to the UK. This product is a global offer, balancing the UK’s bilateral considerations and aligning more closely with the approach of international partners. This product will be capped at an upper limit of 20 issues for Government official delegates accompanying Heads of State, and 10 for Government official delegates accompanying serving Government Ministers. Those applying for this product will have their application assessed under the immigration rules, supported by a note verbale process, but application fees and the requirement to submit fingerprints will be waived.
Changes to “Appendix Bereaved Partner” and “Appendix Gurkha and Hong Kong military unit veteran discharged before 1 July 1997”
Currently, a bereaved partner who has no other route to stay must leave the UK if they cannot afford the fee for settlement. So, we are changing the relevant rules to allow bereaved partners and their dependants to benefit from a fee waiver if they are destitute. Equivalent changes are being made to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, which are also being laid in Parliament today. The provision of a fee waiver to those who are destitute will allow them to settle in the UK at the time they are most vulnerable.
Changes to the EU settlement scheme
We are making some changes to the immigration rules in “Appendix EU” for the EUSS, which, in accordance with the citizens’ rights agreements, enables EU, other European economic area and Swiss citizens living in the UK before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and their family members, to obtain the UK immigration status they need to continue living in the UK. The changes include referring to the scope to automatically convert pre-settled status under the EUSS to settled status where the person qualifies for this and without the need for them to make a further valid application, and to require a joining family member to apply to the EUSS within three months of their first (not latest) arrival in the UK since the end of the transition period (or later where there are reasonable grounds for their delay).
These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 10 September 2024. For the changes regarding Jordan, due to safeguarding the operation of the UK’s immigration system, those changes will come into effect at 15:00 BST on 10 September 2024. The changes regarding “Appendix Bereaved Partner” and “Appendix Gurkha and Hong Kong military unit veteran discharged before 1 July 1997” will come into effect on 9 October 2024, changes regarding the VIP delegate visa will come into effect on 10 October 2024, changes to introduce a “diplomatic visa arrangement” visitor visa will come into effect on 18 February 2025 and associated changes to end diplomatic visa waivers will come into effect on 11 March 2025.
All other changes will come into effect on 8 October 2024.
[HCWS81]