Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

On safe and legal routes, as a priority I would look at things like the Afghan schemes, which are completely and utterly broken. The Afghan relocations and assistance policy has collapsed and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme never really worked. Which nationality is always in the top three or four nationalities crossing the channel? The Afghans. We need to get the schemes that are currently in place working properly, and then we need to look at international co-operation, working with our European partners and allies, to create a dynamic whereby the United Kingdom does its bit, as part of ensuring that those trying to cross the channel in small boats do not do so.

[Robert Jenrick]

To draw the shadow Minister back to the amendments and the interim measures of the Strasbourg court, and to build on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), am I right in understanding that the Labour party’s position is that it does not want to see reform of rule 39 interim measures? I find that surprising, given that the UK is working in concert with many, perhaps all, signatories of the European convention on human rights to do just that. Most of our friends and allies in Europe consider there to be serious rule of law issues arising from the so-called pyjama injunctions and, like them, we want to see them reformed. Would the Labour party abandon that piece of work?

[Stephen Kinnock]

When we enter Government, as I hope we will, everything we do will be based on a test: is it affordable, is it workable and is it legal? The legal piece has to be based on compliance with our international legal obligations. However, if one cherishes something, one also has to be open to changing and improving it. It is clear that a global conversation and a European conversation are required about the immigration position in which we find ourselves. If we, in concert with our international partners and allies, can find ways to improve the system, of course Labour would look to do that. Unfortunately, we cannot negotiate that deal from Opposition, but we will certainly prioritise that as and when we come into Government.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The amendment also says there very narrow grounds on which individuals will not be put on flights, grounds that the Home Office is very used to dealing with through fitness to travel requirements. That is a concept that is well known and understood and I am certain it would work.

What does the amendment do that is different? It narrows down the reasons for which individuals could make claims and makes the scheme legally and operationally workable for the first time. We have tried to be constructive in tabling amendments. The Prime Minister set a test for me, and for anyone who shares my determination to tackle this issue, as follows: that he would accept any amendment, whether or not it strengthened the Bill, if there were respectable legal arguments in international law in their favour. We can argue about whether that test is the right one. Personally, I feel very strongly that there are times when contested notions of international law should not surpass either parliamentary sovereignty or, above all, the interests of our constituents, and border security and national security are the prime responsibilities of any Government. But that was the test, and we have met the test.

We instructed a very eminent lawyer, John Larkin KC, former Attorney General of Northern Ireland, to provide us with an opinion. The opinion says that each and every one of the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone are compliant with international law. Unless the goalposts have been shifted by the Government, I see no reason why the Prime Minister and the Minister could not accept the amendments and enable us to strengthen this Bill once and for all.

In conclusion, at the outset I said there was one question hanging over this debate: what works? However, there is a further question: how much are we willing to do to stop the boats? How willing are we to take on the vested interests, balance the trade-offs and take the robust steps that will actually work? The only countries in the world that have fixed this problem, latterly Australia and Greece, have been willing to take the most robust action. Are we? I am. I want to stop the boats and secure our borders.

This is a difficult issue, but we are not a parish council struggling with some kind of intractable legal problem. We are a sovereign Parliament. The power is in our hands. We have agency. The law is our servant, not our master. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the amendments in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and create a scheme that works. That is what our constituents expect of us and that is the promise that the Prime Minister has made to them and the whole country.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 35 and 37 and new clause 6, tabled in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow home Secretary.

I start by reminding the Committee and anyone watching at home that the Labour party is opposed to this Bill in its entirety, for the simple reason that we are opposed to the Rwanda scheme in its entirety. We have been clear that we need to stop the Conservative small boats chaos and we need to fix our broken asylum system, but those aims can only be achieved by way of measures that are based on common sense, hard graft and international co-operation, as opposed to headline-chasing and government by gimmick from those on the Conservative Benches.

The Conservatives like to accuse us of opposing everything that the Government are doing to stop the Tory small boats chaos, but that is simply not the case. We on the Labour Benches fully support measures such as the deal with Albania, because that is the sort of sensible, pragmatic action that can make a tangible difference. We have repeatedly made our support for that course of action crystal clear, if only the Conservatives would care to listen. However, the Labour party will never support any proposal that is unaffordable, unworkable or unlawful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The co-operation with France is to be welcomed. The problem is that it is too far downstream. We need far better co-operation upstream, which is about sharing data and fixing the issue with the databases—the shadow Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition visited Europol recently to come forward with very practical and detailed plans around getting the data-sharing right. That may address the issue of the falling number of prosecutions of criminal smuggler gangs on this Government’s watch and the number of returns and removals falling by 50% since 2010. Again, we go back to the point about putting more energy and resources into the pragmatic and sensible things that can actually make a difference, as opposed to being distracted by this madcap Rwanda scheme.

It is mark of a liberal democracy that courts are independent of Parliament and the Executive. We on the Labour Benches believe passionately that that separation of powers is a fundamental and immutable element of what makes us proud to be British. Not only are we opposed to the specifics of the Bill, but we are deeply troubled by what it represents in a broader sense.

[Robert Jenrick]

Over the Christmas period, the Labour Front Benchers anonymously briefed The Times saying that they would want to pursue an offshore processing model. Is that the position of the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Home Secretary, and if so, why would they want to do something that is known to be more expensive and less effective—everyone would have to be brought back to the United Kingdom one way or another, so that would create no deterrent whatsoever—and not move forward with a scheme such as Rwanda?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the former Immigration Minister for his comments. I enjoyed opposing him and, on some occasions, working with him. Look at the Ukraine scheme. That is an example of offshore processing: people’s applications were processed in Poland before they came to our country. Look at the Hong Kong scheme. There are plenty of ways of doing upstream and offshore processing. To coin a phrase, what matters is what works. What is absolutely clear is that it is difficult to imagine any scheme that could be more expensive than the Rwanda policy. I will now make some progress.

I cite the view of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and countless other legal experts, who have stated that the Bill is contrary to the rule of law because it amounts to a legislative usurpation of the judicial function. It is an assault on our country’s constitutional conventions, which require the legislature to respect the essence of the judicial function. Moreover, there is a staggering hypocrisy at the heart of the Bill when we consider it in the context of the treaty that has been signed with Rwanda. The purpose of that treaty is to bind the Rwandan Government into respecting the rule of law, and in particular the principle of non-refoulement. How on earth can Ministers hold the Rwandan authorities to account on these matters if they themselves are so blatantly and egregiously failing to practise what they preach?

[Stephen Kinnock]

There has been a 30% drop since 2010 in convictions of criminal smuggler gangs, and a 50% drop since 2010 in removals. I would be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with clear details of those facts—we have the receipts.

It is against that fundamentally flawed and farcical backdrop that we seek to modify the legislation that is before us today. Our amendments are an attempt at damage limitation—an effort to moderate the most egregious aspects of this nonsensical and counterproductive Bill. Our amendment 35 acknowledges that, in November of last year, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal judgment. It ruled unanimously that the Rwanda policy was unlawful, because there were substantial grounds to believe that people transferred to Rwanda could be sent to countries where they would face persecution or inhumane treatment if Rwanda rejected their asylum claims, a practice known as refoulement.

The reason for those concerns relates to an issue that I first raised at this Dispatch Box back in April 2022, when the Rwanda plan was first announced. When Israel signed its deal with Rwanda in 2013, many of the asylum seekers who were sent from Israel to Rwanda were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda, and in three cases, refoulement to Eritrea via Kenya was prevented only by the UNHCR intervening. It is little wonder that the Israeli Supreme Court ruled the scheme unlawful in 2018, and it was closed down. In December, the Government signed a treaty with the Rwandan Government that says that refoulement is prohibited, and that anyone removed to Rwanda from the UK must be allowed to stay in Rwanda. Indeed, the only country to which people can be transferred from Rwanda is the UK, which under the deal must also accept some of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees and offenders sent back from that country.

That in itself tells a story. The fact that the UK Government and the Rwandan Government have agreed that Britain might need to take some Rwandan refugees is a stark admission that Rwanda is not a safe country for many people. Indeed, since the first £120 million payment by the British Government to Rwanda, six Rwandans have been granted safety and refuge in the UK. Then there is the tragic fact that Ministers are simply too afraid to address. In 2018, 12 Congolese refugees were shot dead by Rwandan police for protesting against food shortages. Our amendment 35 therefore permits British courts and tribunals to recognise and deal with the specific risks of refoulement associated with Rwanda by removing the relevant text from clause 2 of the Bill.

Likewise, our amendment 37 makes clear that decision makers must be able to take the risk of refoulement into consideration when processing asylum claims. The Bill designates Rwanda as a safe country, and therefore makes clear that

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda”

as such. It states that the Bill

“does not permit a decision-maker to consider any matter, claim or complaint to the extent that it relates to the issue of whether the Republic of Rwanda will or may remove or send the person in question to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations (including in particular its obligations under the Refugee Convention).”

However, as the Government have previously acknowledged, the facts on the ground can change, and decision makers should therefore be able to make their own judgments based on the latest court rulings. As such, we see no reason not to let decision makers do their jobs and make decisions based on all the knowledge available to them as the situation evolves, as opposed to the frankly absurd idea that Rwanda can be defined as safe in perpetuity.

I turn now to our new clause 6. The new treaty states that Rwanda is committed to addressing concerns that are laid out in the Supreme Court judgment, including refoulement. New clause 6 would help to ensure that Rwanda can be held accountable on its treaty commitments by placing the monitoring committee for the Rwanda treaty on a statutory basis, and by placing conditions on when the classification of Rwanda as safe can be suspended in accordance with the material conditions and/or non-compliance with obligations under the treaty. As things stand, the Government could vary the operating principles of the monitoring committee without it being possible for such changes to be challenged in our domestic courts. Our new clause 6 therefore addresses that unacceptable position by placing the monitoring committee on a statutory footing, making it judiciable and thus, by definition, more transparent and accountable. We see no reason why Government Members and Members across this House should oppose the principles of transparency and accountability on which our new clause 6 is based, and we hope they will join us in the Aye Lobby later.

Turning briefly to the amendments tabled by Government Members, I would point out that even one of their own colleagues, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—the chair of the One Nation group—has described many of those amendments as “authoritarian” and a betrayal of Conservative values. He is right. The Bill in its current form is already an assault on our reputation as a country that upholds the separation of powers and the rule of law, and the majority of the amendments tabled by Government Members would take us even further away from those basic democratic principles. Let me be clear: Labour Members will proudly be voting against the amendments that are being promoted by Conservative Members, because the Government’s Rwanda policy is unaffordable, unworkable and unlawful; because the Bill is an affront to the values that we hold dear; and because we will always stand up for the separation of powers, the rule of law, and ensuring that we can stand tall in the world.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way a second time. I have listened to him carefully, but I have not heard an answer to one of the central questions of the debate. It is the Government’s view that Rwanda is a safe country; what is the view of the Labour party? Is Rwanda a safe country? I think we would all be interested to know the Labour party’s position—I know the Government of Rwanda would be interested.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I do not think I could have made it any clearer that we believe in the rule of law and the judicial function, and when the Supreme Court of our land rules that it is not safe to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, we on the Labour Benches absolutely agree with that position.

We have seen some pretty bizarre stuff emanating from the Conservative Benches over the decades, but when the history books of the past 14 years are written, the Conservatives’ psychodramas over this Rwanda policy will surely take centre stage. Just think of the astonishing amount of Government time that has been ploughed into this unaffordable and unworkable nonsense, when Ministers and officials could have been focused on the design and delivery of the sorts of sensible, practical measures that I mentioned earlier. Just think of the vast amounts of political capital that the Prime Minister has squandered on a policy that he does not actually believe in, that his Home Secretary has privately pooh-poohed—if you will pardon the pun, Chair—and that has left his leadership in tatters.

The legislation before us is a sham, but in the interests of damage limitation, I urge Members to get behind Labour’s amendments today. Of course, most crucially, I urge them to vote down this Bill on Third Reading, and get behind Labour’s plan to deliver the security partnership and cross-border police unit that will smash the criminal gangs, defeat the people smugglers, and stop the Tory boats chaos once and for all.

Illegal Migration

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

At the time of the last election, the asylum backlog had already spiralled under Conservative mismanagement, but the number of small boats crossing the channel was close to zero, as was the number of emergency hotels being used. If we fast-forward four years, we see before us a picture of Tory boats chaos. For the third year running, more than 25,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats, while the number of hotels being used is about 400, at an eye-watering cost to the taxpayer of £8 million a day—higher than the cost last year. And what is the Government’s response? A Rwanda plan, but they have sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Rwanda; an Illegal Migration Act that is counterproductive and has not even been brought into full force yet; and a new barge that was meant to bring down hotel costs, but has only added to them. Also, the military bases promised by the Prime Minister last December are still not ready. All of this has left the Prime Minister with an asylum strategy this summer that was less akin to the Australian asylum model that he is so desperate to replicate and more in tune with the Australian cricket team during this summer’s Ashes: cross your fingers and pray for rain. Surely the Prime Minister knows that this was the wettest summer since 1912, and surely he recognises the impact that this had on small boat crossings.

The Government also like to claim to be bringing the backlog down, but it stands at 176,000. They like to talk about a legacy backlog, but this is just nonsense. It is a figment of the Prime Minister’s imagination. He is taking last year’s workload but ignoring this year’s workload. The backlog is the backlog is the backlog. You can slice the cake however you want and spin it however you want, but the cake is still the same size: 176,000 in the last quarterly figures—up, not down. As for those who are being processed and rejected—slowly, it must be said, at half the productivity of seven years ago—are they actually being returned? Removals are down 70% since Labour left office, with a 40,000 removals backlog.

On the issue of hotel use, today’s announcement illustrates better than any other the utter lack of ambition the Prime Minister has for our country. It beggars belief that the Minister has the brass neck to come here today to announce not that the Government have cut the number of hotels being used but that they simply plan to do so, and by a paltry 12%. Is that really it? Is it really their ambition that there will still be 350 asylum hotels in use at the end of the winter, despite promises last year that they would end hotel use this year?

Further questions for the Minister. Is it really true that the hotels he is considering closing will be in marginal constituencies? Does he really think that the public might not see through that ruse? Will he publish a list of the hotels he plans to close over the next six months? And why does the Minister not come back to update this Chamber when he has actually achieved something—not when he plans to achieve something or done a small part of what has been promised, but when the Prime Minister has actually achieved what he said he was going to achieve? At the moment, he sounds like an arsonist who has burned our house down and is expecting us to thank him for throwing a bucket of water on it.

Better still, why will this Government not get out of the way so that we on these Benches can show the leadership shown by our leader and our shadow Home Secretary on their trip to Europol recently, where they set out Labour’s plans to stop the Tory boats chaos by smashing the gangs, clearing the asylum backlog by surging the number of caseworkers, ending hotel use and fixing the asylum system, which successive Conservative Prime Ministers have utterly broken after 13 years of neglect and incompetence?

[Robert Jenrick]

So it is all down to the weather again. Every time I come to this Chamber, it is about the weather. The hon. Gentleman is becoming the Michael Fish of British politics: he always gets the forecasts wrong. The truth is that he cannot bear to admit that our plan is actually starting to work. Returns are up, raids are up, productivity is up 10 times and, above all, small boat arrivals are down. We are closing hotels; he wants to open our borders. The Government will never elevate the interests of illegal migrants over those of the hard-working taxpayers of this country. That is what we hold in our minds every day in this job, and that is the difference between the Labour party and this Government.

We used to think that the Labour party had no plan, but now we know that it does not even want to stop the boats. In the summer, the Leader of the Opposition said that, even if the Rwanda plan was working, he would still scrap it. How telling was that? Even if we were securing our borders, he would scrap it and wave people into our country. He also said on his fabled trip to Europe that he would strike a new deal with the EU, which would bring thousands of people into the country. The new towns that he announced at the Labour party conference would be filled with illegal migrants. We will never do that. The Labour party’s strategy is to force the British public to grudgingly accept mass migration. We disagree. We believe that the British public believe in secure borders and that they want a robust and fair immigration and asylum system. Our plan is working. Don’t let Labour ruin it.

Illegal Migration Update

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, thin though it is, and I echo his sentiments in sending condolences to the families of those six people who died tragically in the accident in the channel earlier this summer. We simply must stop these dangerous crossings.

I am absolutely bewildered that, after the summer we have had, yesterday the Prime Minister claimed victory in his broken pledge to stop the boats. This Saturday we saw the year’s record number of channel crossings, with more than 870 people making that dangerous journey in a single day, and the total number has now soared to a whopping 21,000 for the year. The only reason the number is not breaking last year’s record is the poor weather in July and August—and a strategy that depends on the weather is probably not a very sustainable strategy at all.

What has that left us with? A Government flailing around, chasing headlines with gimmicks and stunts rather than doing the hard graft of actually stopping the boats, clearing the backlog and getting people out of the hotels. Take their much celebrated small boats week last month, which turned out to be an absolute omnishambles, with taxpayers paying the price. No wonder the Home Secretary did not want to do a single interview, and no wonder she is not in the Chamber today.

Do not take my word for it: that well-known pro-Labour publication the Daily Mail did a day-by-day review. On the Monday, just 39 migrants were brought into the 500-capacity Bibby Stockholm barge. On the Tuesday, the Conservative deputy chairman admitted that his party has “failed” on immigration. On the Wednesday, the Immigration Minister sparked fresh Tory infighting over whether Britain should leave the European convention on human rights. On the Thursday, channel crossings hit their highest daily number for the year. Then, to cap it all, on the Friday, all the asylum seekers were removed from the Bibby Stockholm because of the presence of legionella in the water supply. You could not make it up.

The Bibby Stockholm was supposed to be a symbol of the Conservatives’ cutting asylum costs, but the Minister has not even mentioned those costs today. Instead, it stands alongside the boats and the hotels as a floating symbol of Conservative failure and incompetence that is costing the taxpayer half a million pounds a month. On top of that, new Home Office data in August showed us that the asylum seeker backlog has grown ninefold to an enormous 175,000 under the Conservatives at a cost of £4 billion a year to the taxpayer—incredibly, eight times higher than it was when Labour left office in 2010. That waste is the cost of 13 years of Conservative neglect.

Today, we debate the cost of the spiralling asylum backlog, driven by cutting the costs of asylum decision making in 2013. Yesterday, the Chancellor was promising to spend “whatever it takes” to fix crumbling classrooms caused by the Prime Minister’s cuts to the schools budget as Chancellor. Tomorrow, we will no doubt be back to the economy and the financial costs of low growth and spiralling mortgages. Everywhere we look, we see the costs of Conservative incompetence.

The Minister speaks now of this new deal with Turkey. Well, I am glad that the Government have started to listen to Labour—we have been calling for tough action to disrupt the gangs upstream for well over a year—but this looks pitifully weak. This announcement comes with no new funding or staff, meaning that officers could be taken off existing functions. That stands in contrast to Labour’s fully funded plan to hire hundreds of specialists specifically to work on that challenge. Meanwhile, Turkish nationals have become one of the largest groups crossing the channel this year.

The Minister boasts about returns of failed asylum seekers going up, but they are actually down 70% compared with when Labour left office in 2010. Forty thousand are awaiting removal, and, at the current rate, it will take the Government more than 10 years to achieve their target. Two thousand fewer foreign national offenders are being removed per year compared with when Labour left office in 2010.

The Minister brags about the legacy backlog—a figment of the Prime Minister’s imagination—going down, but he knows full well that the only backlog that matters is that of the 175,000 people, and that number is still going up. We know that the Government are cooking the books in that regard, marking large numbers of asylum seekers as “withdrawn” because they have missed a single appointment or failed to fill in a form correctly. A Conservative Back-Bench MP described that as an amnesty in all but name.

The Minister has decided to make illegal working even more illegal. The problem is that there has been a lack of Government enforcement. Employers who are exploiting and illegally employing migrant workers should face the full force of the law, but in reality, the number of penalties issued to firms has fallen by two thirds since 2016.

There are so many questions that it is difficult to know where to start, but let us start with these: when did the Minister know about legionella on Bibby Stockholm? How much is the barge currently costing? How many people are currently in hotels? Does he actually intend to implement the much-vaunted Illegal Migration Act 2023? The Prime Minister keeps declaring victory, but the reality is that nothing is working and everything the Government do just makes everything worse, so when will they get out of the way so that we on the Labour Benches can take over, implement our plan and retake control of our broken asylum system?

[Robert Jenrick]

That was a desperately thin response. We can deduce from it that the Labour party has absolutely no plan to tackle this issue. Of course the hon. Gentleman has had a quieter summer than me, but that is because the Labour party is completely uninterested in tackling illegal migration.

The hon. Gentleman talks about small boats week. Well, let us see how it went for the Labour party. On Monday, the Government announced the biggest increase in fines for illegal working and renting for a decade, while Labour MPs called for illegal migrants to have the right to work immediately, which would act as a massive magnet for even more crossings. On Tuesday, we announced our professional enablers taskforce to clamp down on lawyers who abuse the system, while Labour MPs were awfully quiet, weren’t they? They did nothing to distance themselves from the litany of councillors and advisers exposed as being implicated in efforts to stop the removal of criminals and failed asylum seekers. On Wednesday, we announced a partnership with Turkey to smash the gangs, while the shadow Home Secretary claimed that morning that what we really needed was a return to the Dublin convention—something that even the EU described as “prehistoric”.

The truth is that the Labour party has no plan to tackle this issue, and does not even want to tackle it. We on the Conservative Benches are getting on with the job, and we are making progress: while the rest of Europe sees significant increases in migrants, we are seeing significant falls. Our plan is the most comprehensive of any country in Europe and it is starting to work.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the only people who benefit from the small boat crossings are the people smugglers and human traffickers—that has to be brought to an end. Where we fundamentally disagree is about the means. Labour believes that the deterrence of the Rwanda scheme simply will not work, for the reasons I have already set out, and that the solution lies far more in pragmatism and quiet diplomacy, working with international partners to get the returns deal that I talked about, than in all the performative cruelty that is at the heart of this Bill.

Likewise, the Government should show some humility and support Lords amendment 33B, which states that accompanied children should be liable for detention only for up to 96 hours. This is a fair and reasonable compromise, given that Lords amendment 33 initially set the limit at 72 hours.

While we are on the subject of children, how utterly astonishing and deeply depressing it was to hear the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box last week and justifying the erasure of Disney cartoons on the basis of their not being age-appropriate. Quite apart from the fact that his nasty, bullying, performative cruelty will have absolutely no effect whatsoever in stopping the boats, it has since emerged that more than 9,000 of the children who passed through that building in the year to March 2023 were under the age of 14. Given that a significant proportion of those 9,000 would have been younger still, I just wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to withdraw his comments about the age-appropriateness of those cartoons.

[Robert Jenrick]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Kinnock]

No. Well, there we have it. This whole sorry episode really was a new low for this Minister and for the shameful, callous Government he represents.

We also support Lords amendment 23B, a compromise in lieu of Lords amendment 23, which seeks to protect LGBT asylum seekers from being removed to a country that persecutes them for their sexuality or gender. The Minister last week claimed that that was unnecessary because there is an appeals process, but why on earth would he put asylum seekers and the British taxpayer through an expensive and time-consuming appeals process when he could just rule out this scenario from the outset?

Nothing illustrates more clearly the indifference of this Government towards the most vulnerable people in society than their treatment of women being trafficked into our country for prostitution. I have already described this Bill as a traffickers charter—a gift to the slave drivers and the pimps—because it makes it harder for victims to come forward and therefore more difficult for the police to prosecute criminals. The Immigration Minister last week repeated the false claim that the UK Statistics Authority recently rebuked him for. It was his second rebuke this year by our national statistics watchdog for inaccurate claims made to this House. Thankfully, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place today, called him out on it. She correctly pointed out that the proportion of small boats migrants claiming to be victims of modern slavery stands at just 7%. This was a profoundly embarrassing moment for the Minister, but I do hope he will now swallow his pride, listen to the wise counsel he is receiving from those on the Benches behind him and accept Lords amendment 56B in the name of Lord Randall.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Member is right that I misspoke when citing those statistics on an earlier occasion, but in fact the statistics were worse than I said to the House. What I said was that, of foreign national offenders who are in the detained estate on the eve of their departure, over 70% made use of modern slavery legislation to put in a last-minute claim and delay their removal. However, it was not just FNOs; it was also small boat arrivals. So the point I was making was even more pertinent, and it is one that he should try to answer. What would he do to stop 70% of people in the detained estate, who we are trying to get out of the country, putting in a frivolous claim at the last minute?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Sir Robert Chote of the UK Statistics Authority said clearly that the figure is only 20%, not 70%. I do not know whether we want to invite Sir Robert to clarify those points himself, but the rebuke the Minister received from the UK Statistics Authority was pretty clear.

It is vitally important that the Minister’s position on this is not used as the basis for a policy that could cause profound harm to vulnerable women while feeding criminality in the United Kingdom. I therefore urge him to reflect on what he is trying to achieve, the proportionality of his actions and the unintended consequences he may be facilitating. Lords amendment 56B states that victims of trafficking who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK should be protected from the automatic duty to remove and should continue to be able to access the support currently available to them, but only for the duration of the statutory recovery period, which was set by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 at 30 days.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead argued that the Bill as drafted would

“drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, denying support to those who have been exploited and enslaved and, in doing so, making it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave drivers.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 886.]

We strongly agree with her concerns and wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 56B, which I remind the Minister goes no further than to maintain the status quo of the basic protections and support currently available to all victims of trafficking and exportation.

I will now turn to the amendments that are underpinned by Labour’s five-point plan: end the dangerous small-boat crossings, defeat the criminal gangs, clear the backlog, end extortionate hotel use, and fix the asylum system that the Conservatives have spent 13 years destroying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I suppose the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and the Rwanda plan is so clearly and utterly misconceived, misconstrued and counter-productive. Labour Members like to vote for things that are actually going to work, which is why we simply cannot support that hare-brained scheme.

With the Minister last week reiterating a deadline of December 2024—18 months from now—to lay out what safe and legal routes might look like, and by stating that those routes will not deal with the challenges facing Europe directly, he appears to be reducing the chances of getting the returns deal with the EU that we so urgently need. Let us not forget that this Government sent Britain tumbling out of the Dublin regulations during their botched Brexit negotiations, and it is no surprise that small boat crossings have skyrocketed since then. This Government must prioritise getting that returns deal. We therefore support Lords amendment 102B, which demands that the Government get on with setting out what these safe and legal routes might look like, not only to provide controlled and capped pathways to sanctuary for genuine refugees, but to break that deadlock in the negotiations with the EU over returns.

I note that the Minister loves to trot out his lines about the Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghan resettlement schemes, but he neglects to mention that there are now thousands of homeless Ukrainian families, and we have the travesty of thousands of loyal-to-Britain Afghans who are set to be thrown on the streets at the end of August. More than 2,000 Afghans are stuck in Pakistan with the right to come here, but they are not being allowed to do so. He simply must fix those resettlement schemes.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point that all Members of the House should appreciate. The No. 1 reason why we are struggling to bring to the UK those people in Pakistan—we would like to bring them here, because we have a moral and historical obligation to them—is that illegal immigrants on small boats have taken all the capacity of local authorities to house them. If the hon. Gentleman truly wanted to support those people, he would back this Bill, he would stop the boats, and then he would help us to bring those much-needed people into the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

It beggars belief that the Immigration Minister says that, when he speaks for a party that has allowed our backlog to get to 180,000, costing £7 million a day in hotels. He should just get the processing system sorted out. The Conservatives downgraded the seniority of caseworkers and decision makers in 2013 and 2014. Surprise, surprise, productivity fell off a cliff, as did the quality of decisions. That is the fundamental problem, but we have to recognise that these Afghans have stood shoulder to shoulder with our defence, diplomacy and development effort in Afghanistan, and we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.

[Robert Jenrick]

Does the hon. Gentleman know how many asylum seekers are housed in his constituency, or would he like me to tell him? It is none. There are no asylum seekers accommodated in Aberavon. If he would like us to bring in more people, whether on safe and legal routes, or on schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, he should get on the phone to his local council and the Welsh Government this afternoon.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. I am proud of the fact we have many Syrians in our constituency. We have Ukrainians in our welcome centre. Discussions are ongoing between the Home Office and the Welsh Government. The incompetence of his Government means that they are not managing to house them. Wales is ready to have that dialogue with the Home Office.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 12th July 2023 General Committees

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support for many of the measures in this package—in particular, the ETA, which is an important long-term project for the United Kingdom that will go a significant way to improving our border security and bring us in line with many other developed countries. I said in my opening remarks that all of us who travel to the United States, for example, will have long been familiar with its equivalent. It is right that the UK now produces its own version. We are not alone in this. The European Union is in the process of developing its version of the ETA, which was due to be rolled out this year. It is likely to be delayed, but we await news from the European Commission. All of us are united in our shared view that it is right that sovereign countries—such as the United Kingdom—should know as much as possible about individuals prior to their arrival on the soil of those countries, and the ETA is the key way in which we do that.

We have chosen to begin later this year with Qatar, which is a small but important partner of the United Kingdom and will enable us to pilot the scheme. After that, a small group of other countries will be included before a wider roll-out next year. As the shadow Minister may be aware, we have chosen to adopt a modest delay to the broader roll-out to ensure that the technology is right, because it is important to the United Kingdom, reputationally and economically, that we get this right and that there are not issues with technology when it is launched.

With regard to the maximum fee of £10, we have considered it very carefully. We want to ensure that that fee meets the true cost of the scheme, which is significant because of the new technology that we are standing up, but also that we are competitive and that we do not put people off, whether they be well-paid business travellers, students or those coming on visit visas or school trips to the United Kingdom, whose income and pockets may not be so deep. We think that £10 is an appropriate level that compares favourably with other countries around the world.

The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about the interface between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in that regard. That is one of the complexities of launching the ETA, because, as he suggests, it does interface with the common travel area. We have had extensive conversations with the Republic of Ireland and with stakeholders in Northern Ireland. I myself have met with the tourist board to discuss its concerns.

As the hon. Gentleman suggests, those concerns are that international visitors coming in on international flights to the Republic, but looking to do short trips to Northern Ireland—either a day trip or a couple of nights for sightseeing, for golf holidays, or for the various other sources of income from tourism in Northern Ireland—might be deterred as a result of the ETA fee. We conclude that the deterrence is limited, bearing in mind the £10 fee and the simple process. In most cases, it can be done by the individual themselves on a smartphone, or with the help of their travel agent or tour-booking company.

However, we do take those concerns seriously and have worked to try to alleviate them. We will be working on the roll-out to ensure that there is a smooth communication plan with all international tour operators that bring travellers to the island of Ireland. We are also working with some of the other important stakeholders, such as insurance companies, so that they understand the scheme and so that someone who unwittingly crosses the border in a car hired in the Republic does not find themselves in a difficult position should they get into an accident in Northern Ireland without having completed the ETA. I can therefore provide the hon. Gentleman with some assurances that we have given the matter a great deal of thought.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister, and I am reassured to hear that a great deal of thought has been given. I have also met with members of the Northern Ireland tourist board, and they have expressed extreme concern about this issue. They feel that their marketing strategy is very much based on an all-of-Ireland approach, and the communication of that to potential customers is, they feel, significantly undermined just by this additional measure. It is almost the symbolic nature of it that impacts on their overall marketing strategy. I want to underline that point and urge the Minister to continue that dialogue with the key stakeholders.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting with stakeholders. I do not want to represent their views, because they remain deeply concerned about this.

However, my point was that we have gone to a lot of trouble both to engage with them and to seek mitigations. The alternatives are not ones that we would consider palatable: not continuing with the roll-out of the ETA; rolling out the ETA only for Great Britain and not for Northern Ireland, which would create a significant security loophole in the ETA and undermine the Union; or, linked to that, imposing some checks at the border between GB and Northern Ireland, and asking individuals who choose to cross from NI to GB to have an ETA and to be willing to show it at that point—again, that is not something that the Government are willing to consider. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps with a full explanation of our work with the Republic and stakeholders in this regard.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked about student visa fees. The first point to make is that the fees charged with respect to all these visa and immigration matters are not linked directly to the individual cost of the visas, but to the sustainability of the wider system. We seek to raise sufficient funds that general taxpayers do not fund, or fund to a lesser extent than they would otherwise, our visa and immigration system. There is not a direct link between the cost of any one visa and the fee charged for those reasons.

Furthermore, the policy has been agreed across Government. We worked with the Department for Education, and it supports our proposals. The international education strategy to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been a huge success. It set out a 10-year plan to attract 600,000 students to the United Kingdom, and we met that many years early. Demand for student visas is high, and from the operating data that I have seen—as yet unpublished—it continues to be high. It is not unreasonable to ask international students to pay a higher fee in support the general funding of our immigration and visa system and reduce the cost to the taxpayer of managing the system more generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that the actual cost to the Home Office of processing the visas is less than half of what applicants have to pay. So that we can have some transparency on how the increased costs were calculated, does the Minister agree with that analysis

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not have those exact costs to hand, but my point is that it is not right for the taxpayers of this country—with taxes at their current level—to pay yet more to fund our immigration and borders system. It is right that we recover as much of that cost as possible from visitors to the United Kingdom. Of course that is a careful balance, because we want to support the UK being an open country that attracts businesses, tourists and indeed students, but wherever possible, and where it is reasonable, we should try to get that money from international visitors to the UK, rather than leaning yet more on domestic taxpayers.

With that, I thank the members of the Committee for their support this morning. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Government’s destruction of their own asylum system can best be described as an act of arson and their plans to fix it are utterly farcical. They have sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Rwanda. They sent the Prime Minister on a victory lap in Dover, apparently failing to notice that the weather improves over the summer and the boat numbers increase. And they were in such a flap about losing votes on their bigger backlog Bill that they resorted to dragging Lord Lebedev of Siberia into the Division Lobby. Now the Court of Appeal ruling has revealed that Rwanda is able to process only 100 claims per year—around 0.3% of those who arrived on small boats last year. Can the Minister tell me what he is planning to do with the remaining 99.7%, and does he therefore agree that the prospect of the Rwanda plan actually deterring any migrant from crossing the channel is close to zero?

[Robert Jenrick]

I used to say that the Labour party does not have a plan, but the truth is that it does have a plan, but it is a plan that would make things significantly worse. It is a plan that would ensure more granting of cases; more safe and legal routes, so even more individuals would come here; more hotels; and more cost to the British taxpayer. What is so disgraceful is the level of hypocrisy. We only have to look at the record of Welsh Labour to see that. In Wales, the Welsh Minister for Social Justice declared on 15 occasions in the Senedd that Labour-run Wales was “a nation of sanctuary”, but across the same period, Labour-run Wales accommodated 176 fewer asylum seekers. In fact, the latest published data shows that Labour-run Wales has taken just half the number of people that it should per capita.

Inshore Industry Fishing Crews: Visas

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 25th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful for that. The point is registered. I will make inquiries and revert to all hon. Members present who are interested.

I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford about English language requirements. In our 2019 manifesto, we committed to prioritising people who have a good grasp of English in our visa system. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, helping visa holders to participate in community life and work. As the hon. Member noted, the level we set is B1, or lower intermediate English, from the common European framework of reference for languages. That level of English is applied for skilled worker visas without exception, unless the applicant can prove that they are from a majority English-speaking country, of which there are some that provide fishermen and women to UK businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said that workers from Belize, which is an English-speaking country, come to the UK in some numbers. That level is not fluency, but it is the ability to understand and deal with the main points likely to arise in conversation on matters relating to work, school, leisure and so on. Without that level, applicants may struggle to support themselves and their families in the UK.

A good grasp of English can also be important in the workplace, particularly in busy or potentially dangerous environments, and to fulfil health and safety requirements. Workers who do not have a good command of English are more likely to be vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. That is vital in a sector that, as we have just noted, has had some issues with labour market abuses.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On labour market abuses, will the Minister set out the timeline for his Government’s implementation of their manifesto pledge to create a single integrated labour market enforcement authority?

[Robert Jenrick]

We do not have a timetable at present, but we are working with the relevant stakeholders, such as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which deals with abuses onshore, rather than offshore, to find the right approach to protect workers in all settings. I am happy to update the hon. Gentleman further on the likely timescales for that.

I would be happy to consider the proposal of the hon. Member for Strangford, which he set out well, although I do not want to give false hope that we are certain to take it forward. For the reasons I set out, we have principled arguments for maintaining a good degree of English. All of us, including the hon. Gentleman, care about preventing exploitation. We want the people who come to this country to speak a good degree of English, and we want to ensure that we have a well-integrated and cohesive country. As a matter of principle, we have taken the view that all those coming on skilled worker visas should have that level of English.

I appreciate that, in this instance, a high number of those coming for such purposes will ultimately return to their own countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan said. None the less, it is a route to settlement, and we have to be very careful about enabling people to live in the UK for sustained periods or settle here permanently if they cannot participate fully in life in this country.

Student Visas

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

International students are much-valued contributors to our world-class higher education system, which is a great asset to our country. We and Universities UK recognise that a tenfold increase in the number of dependants joining students in the UK since 2018 creates significant challenges and that enforcement measures are long overdue. Therefore, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear, our entire Front-Bench team does not oppose these changes for masters students.

However, as usual, the Government have failed to deliver an impact assessment for the new rules and have left many of the details vague. How many people will this change affect, in terms of both students and dependants? What will the actual impact be on the numbers? The Office for National Statistics defines an immigrant as somebody who has been here for more than a year or who is coming for more than a year, yet masters students are typically here for less than a year.

What is clear is that dependants of students are only a fraction of the story. In their 2019 manifesto, the Conservatives acknowledged that the Brexit vote was a bid to take back control of immigration, but since then net migration has skyrocketed from 226,000 to 500,000, which is a record high even if we exclude Ukrainians and Hongkongers. The number of work visas has increased by a staggering 95%. We are clear that that has happened because for 13 years, the Conservatives have failed to train up Britain’s home-grown talent to fill the vacancies we have and because there are 6 million people on NHS waiting lists in England alone, most of whom wish to return to the workforce.

We want and expect net immigration to reduce, and we have set out plans for how we will get more of Britain’s workers trained up and back to work. Today, the Leader of the Opposition has announced that we will ditch the flawed Government policy that allows businesses to undercut British workers by paying migrant workers 20% less in sectors assigned to the shortage occupation list. Will the Minister commit to scrapping the 20% wage discount on the going rate for shortage occupations? Nothing could be clearer: the Conservatives have lost control of immigration. We are committed on the Opposition Benches to maximising opportunities for Britain’s home-grown talent.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has had a damascene conversion to tighter border controls. Unfortunately, I do not think the British public will believe that. It is the same old Labour party—the party that has always believed in open borders. Its own leader campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party saying that he wanted to defend free movement. Only the other day, the chairwoman of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), said that she expected migration to rise under a future Labour Government. It is the same flip-flopping approach—and the same open door policy.

We want to ensure that we bring net migration down. We consider that to be a solemn promise to the British public, and an important manifesto commitment. This is a significant policy, which I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman support, that will make a tangible difference on this issue. It will reduce very substantially the number of people coming into the country as dependants, but there might be more that needs to be done. We are determined to tackle this issue and to ensure that we bring net migration down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Ending the small boat crossings is one way of reducing immigration, and Labour has a five point plan to do just that, but asylum seekers are only a fraction of the net migration total. The reason net migration is so high in Scotland and across the UK, and the reason businesses are over-reliant on migrant labour, is that, for 13 years, the Conservative party has failed to train up our home-grown talent. It has slashed the skills budget, and failed to get people off record-high NHS waiting lists and back to work. Labour has set out plans to do each of those things, because we want and expect immigration to come down, and yet the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are clearly at loggerheads on the issue—it appears that the right hand does not know what the far-right hand is doing. Is the Home Secretary still committed to the 2019 Conservative manifesto pledge of bringing net migration below 226,000? If so, does she think that the Prime Minister agrees with her?

[Robert Jenrick]

Let us be absolutely clear: this party wants to bring net migration down. I have no idea what Labour wants to do. In the last few days we have heard a succession of shadow Ministers confused on this issue. The Conservative Government believe in controlled migration. We only have to look back to the legacy of the last Labour Government to see that, under Labour, there is always an open-door approach to migration. We will control migration; the Labour party leaves an open-door migration policy.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is one of the many myths that the Conservatives peddle—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—and those myths need to be debunked. It is absolutely clear that the small boat crossings have to be stopped, but the key point is that the Bill will not achieve that objective. Our new clause 25 would actually put some flesh on the bones of something that might work, rather than chasing headlines and doing government by gimmick.

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

The hon. Gentleman must give up on his ridiculous argument that this Government have not taken safe and legal routes seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said, almost half a million humanitarian visas have been issued since 2015. In Europe, we are second only to Sweden for resettlement; in the world, we are fourth only to Canada, the United States and another for UNHCR-sponsored humanitarian schemes. Some 45,000 people have come across on family reunion visas. We need no lectures on playing our part as a generous and compassionate country.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Of course, the Ukraine scheme, the British national overseas scheme and the Afghan scheme—when it used to work—are very welcome; there is no debate about that. But I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman keeps making that point. That is not the point of this debate; the point of this debate is how to address the challenge that we currently face. As hon. Members have pointed out, many people are fleeing war and persecution in the world, and this Government have utterly failed to offer them safe and legal routes. As a result, they come by unauthorised routes—that is a simple fact of life. The other point, of course, is that the Government have allowed the backlog to get completely out of control. The idea that they are making life better and easier for people fleeing war and persecution is for the birds.

I also want to mention areas in which Members on both sides of the House are broadly in agreement, not least because the list is quite short. The Opposition support the principle of Parliament’s having a say each year on the quota or cap for safe and legal routes, as envisaged by clause 51. Every country has a responsibility to do its bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. However, we also believe that the Government’s policy on safe routes cannot begin and end with caps alone.

The Bill presents us with a rare opportunity to have a serious debate about how best to live up to our international commitments to offer protection to those most in need, especially those fleeing persecution and war. The fact that so many detailed, well thought through proposals have been put forward by hon. Members in amendments and new clauses speaks to the depth of cross-party support for making safe routes work and providing genuine alternatives to dangerous crossings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

This has been an excellent debate covering the provisions of the Bill relating to legal proceedings, the cap on the number of refugees to be admitted through new safe and legal routes, and safe countries of origin.

Let me deal briefly with the substantive Government amendments in this group. First, new clause 11 enables the Senior President of Tribunals to request first-tier tribunal judges, including employment tribunal judges, to sit as judges of the upper tribunal. This amendment extends existing deployment powers, which are an important tool for the judiciary to manage the fluctuations in demand in our courts and make best use of their time.

We have also brought forward new clause 12, which enables appeals under the Bill to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission rather than the upper tribunal in appropriate cases. That is necessary to safeguard the sensitive material that would cause harm to the public or individuals if it were revealed in open court. The test for certifying suspensive claims will require that the Home Secretary certify that the decision being taken relies partly or wholly on information that in her opinion should not be made public. I hope that those Government amendments will receive the support of the Committee of the whole House.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way. He will recall that, at the beginning of the debate, I raised a point of order about the fact that he, on 19 December, said that when Labour left office in 2010, the asylum “backlog…was 450,000”—his words. I have received a letter from the UK Statistics Authority completely debunking that claim. It says that in fact the backlog was 19,000, and the backlog now is 166,000. As he is at the Dispatch Box, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity for him to apologise to the House and to correct the record, as per his duties under the ministerial code.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for looking out for me. It is understandable that there would be confusion on this point because, as I think the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said on Second Reading, the situation that we inherited in 2010 was a complete shambles. Indeed, a former Labour Home Secretary described the Department as “not fit for purpose”. What we were referring to was John Vine, who was the chief inspector of borders and immigration. He conducted a report into the shambolic handling of immigration by the last Labour Government, and he said:

“In 2007, the UK Border Agency created the”—

euphemistically titled—

“Case Resolution Directorate…to conclude approximately 400,000-450,000 unresolved legacy records.”

He said:

“Such was the inefficiency of this operation that at one point over 150 boxes of post, including correspondence from applicants, MPs and their legal representatives, lay unopened in a room in Liverpool.”

That room, I am told, was colloquially known as the “room of doom”. Well, we are fixing the system, and I am pleased to say—

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

No, I am not going to give way again. The hon. Member has had his moment. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the work that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have already done, the legacy backlog is falling rapidly, and we intend to meet our commitment to clear it over the course of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Let me speak briefly about the point raised by a number of colleagues about rule 39 and the events of last summer. The Government share the frustration, certainly of Conservative Members, about what happened with the Rwanda flight in June. A case was conducted late at night at the last minute, with no chance for us to make our case or appeal its decision. That was deeply flawed. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) was right when she said, in a thoughtful contribution, that that raises concerning issues. I think it raises issues of natural justice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and others in Government are taking up with the European Court of Human Rights. We want to find a more satisfactory way for the Court to behave in such circumstances in future.

Let me turn briefly to the swathe of amendments tabled by the Scottish National party. At this rate, there will be more SNP amendments to the Bill than there are refugees whom they accommodate in Scotland. Instead of pruning the already excessive forest of legal challenges that we find, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) proposes a Kafkaesque array of new ones. She wants to turn the robust scheme in the Bill into a sieve, and we cannot allow that to happen. The mandate of the British public is clear: they want us to stop the boats. That is what the Bill does, and that is what we intend to achieve.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his contribution. We have listened carefully to his arguments. As the Prime Minister said, it is precisely because we want to help genuine refugees that we need to take full control of our borders. Safe and legal routes, such as those we have brought forward in recent years, which have enabled almost half a million people to come to our country for humanitarian purposes since 2015, are exactly how we will achieve that. I commit to engage with my hon. Friend and other colleagues ahead of Report on setting up safe and legal routes, if necessary by bringing forward further amendments to ensure that there are new routes in addition to the existing schemes, and accelerating the point at which they become operational, with our intention being to open them next year. I also confirm that we will accelerate the process of launching the local authority consultation on safe and legal routes at the same time as the commencement of the Bill. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.

As a former Secretary of State for local government, one provision in the Bill—it was mentioned by a number of colleagues on the Conservative Benches but curiously not by those on the Opposition Benches—is extremely important to me. Government Members will not make promises in this place at the expense of local authorities and our constituents. For the first time, not only will we bring forward more safe and legal routes, but we will first consult with local communities and local authorities, so that those routes are not virtue signalling, but are wedded to the genuine capacity and ability of our communities to house people, to find GP surgery appointments and school places, and to bring those individuals into the country while ensuring that community tensions are not raised unnecessarily. That is a critical distinction.

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, I will give way, because at one point in his remarks he said that he was for the cap, and then he said he was against it. Perhaps he can explain.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Gentleman is making good points about local authority consultation. Will he therefore support new clause 27 tomorrow, which would make it a legal requirement for the Home Office to consult local authorities before deciding on hotels?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. We have been debating it for the past five and a half hours, but he does not seem to have read it. The Bill says, for the very first time, that before we create a safe and legal route we will consult with local authorities. We should all see that as a good step forward. The public are sick of hotels being filled with illegal immigrants and they do not want the wellbeing of illegal immigrants put above that of the British public. That is a crucial change we are making.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Monday 6th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

In 2019, the then Conservative Home Secretary said that she would end small boat crossings in a matter of months. Since then, the number of crossings has increased from 1,000 to 45,000, with the criminal gangs laughing all the way to the bank. Last year, Ministers promised that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would deal with the crisis, but in fact it has caused the asylum backlog to spiral out of control, forcing the British taxpayer to foot the bill for an extra £480 million in six-monthly accommodation costs. Now, Ministers are making all the same empty promises again. The Refugee Council says that the latest Government proposals will cost the taxpayer an extra £1 billion every six months, without anyone being returned anywhere. Does the Minister agree with Albert Einstein that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is a definition of madness?

[Robert Jenrick]

The problem with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is that they vote against every step that we bring forward. In an age of mass migration in which millions of people are on the move and want to come to our country, either as economic migrants or asylum shoppers, we have to take the most robust action we can. The system we are building is a simple one in which those who want to come here illegally in small boats will find no way to a life in this country. They will be returned home, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda.

We will fulfil our commitment to those fleeing genuine persecution, war and human rights abuses, such as through the schemes that we have created for Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, but we on the Government Benches are capable of seeing the difference between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants. I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will join us in voting for that further legislation when we bring it forward shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Monday 19th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is profoundly counterproductive legislation, as illustrated by the fact that, since it was passed, the number of dangerous crossings has reached a record high. The Act includes the so-called inadmissibility clause, but the fact that the Government have failed to negotiate a returns agreement with a single European country means that just 21 out of 18,000 inadmissible people have been returned. Sending 300 asylum seekers to Rwanda will not even touch the sides of that 18,000. Does the Minister recognise the inadequacy of the legislation? Will he explain why the Government’s utterly self-defeating approach has led directly to the British taxpayer footing an extra bill of £500 million?

[Robert Jenrick]

First, whatever the inadequacies of the current system, they would be far worse if the Opposition were in power—in fact, the backlog of cases was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us. They have opposed every tough measure that we have taken, including the Nationality and Borders Act. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that Act did not go far enough, I will welcome his support next year when we bring forward further and even tougher legislation. We will make sure that we secure the borders and control migration. He cannot see the difference between people genuinely fleeing persecution and economic migrants. He is testing the will of the British people; we will take action.

Hotel Asylum Accommodation: Local Authority Consultation

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It seems that we come to the Chamber at least once a week to hear about the mess that the Home Secretary is making of an asylum system that her Government have broken. The root cause of today’s urgent question is the failure of the Government to process asylum claims with anything like the efficiency required. In 2012, the Home Office was making 14 asylum decisions a month; it is now making just five.

Tory Ministers like to blame covid, but the truth is that this is a mess of their own making. They chose to downgrade asylum decision makers from higher executive officer grade to lower executive officer grade, leading to a less experienced workforce on lower wages with lower retention rates and collapsing morale. The inevitable consequences were slower decisions, more decisions overturned at appeal, an increasing backlog and ballooning taxpayer costs.

With the average time to process an asylum claim standing at 449 days, the people smugglers see the backlog as a marketing opportunity—an open invite from this Conservative Government to those who want to melt away into the underground economy. All this catastrophic incompetence has led to the Minister scrambling around to find contingency hotel accommodation, resulting in what the Home Secretary described this morning as “poor communication” between central and local government.

Will the Minister therefore confirm whether he really feels that his undertaking to give local authorities as little as 24 hours’ notice is reasonable? Did he recently pull out of two meetings with council leaders at short notice? What mechanisms is he using to monitor the performance of contractors and subcontractors? I have heard from councils where the public health team was not informed about serious health issues, including pregnancies, so does he accept that he is failing to give local authorities key health-related information? What progress is he making on tackling the crisis of unaccompanied children being placed in hotels— 222 have already gone missing—and will he apologise to the couples who have had to cancel their wedding receptions in hotels at extremely short notice as a result of this Government’s chronic mismanagement?

[Robert Jenrick]

Dear me! The reason I had to pull out of the meeting with local authority leaders was that the hon. Gentleman had called an urgent question and I was here answering his questions. The idea that the Labour party knows how to get a grip of this challenge is, frankly, laughable. The last Labour Government left the Home Office in such disarray that their own Home Secretary declared it not fit for purpose and had to split the place up. The backlog of cases was so high that he had to institute an amnesty, where they literally wrote to people and said, “Welcome to Britain. We can’t process your application—you’re in.” That is not the approach that we are taking.

Labour Members have no credible proposals to stop the problem at source. They voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and they opposed the Rwanda scheme. Their own leader, in his leadership campaign, called for the closure of immigration removal centres—the places where we detain people, often foreign national offenders, while we are trying to get them out of the country. The truth is that, in the last Labour Government, the party was committed to mass migration and uncontrolled immigration. We are only the party that believes in the British public. We are the party that wants to ensure that we secure our borders and have a controlled migration system.

Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Monday 7th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. The Home Secretary has stated that after 12 years of Conservative government the asylum system is “broken”. We agree, and it is the Conservative party that has broken it. The Government are processing just half the number of asylum claims that they were processing in 2015, and as a result the British taxpayer is footing a £7 million hotel bill every single day. Their failure to replace the Dublin agreement on returning failed asylum seekers, their failure to crack down on the criminal gangs, and their failure to get agreement with France have also increased the backlog.

This catalogue of chaos has led to the overcrowding in Manston, for which the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has directly blamed the Home Secretary. The previous Home Secretary revealed today that on 20 October he received legal advice that Manston was

“being used, or in danger of being used, as a detention centre”,

and he took emergency measures to work within the law. However, the current Home Secretary met officials on 19 October, just before she was forced to resign for breaching the ministerial code. Can the Minister please confirm that the Home Secretary refused to take those same emergency measures, and can he explain why she ignored the advice that she was repeatedly given over a period of several weeks? The Home Secretary told the House just a week ago that she did not ignore legal advice. Can the Minister tell the House now whether he believes that statement to be correct? The key question on Manston is whether legal advice was followed or not. Given the Minister’s unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing project in his previous brief, is he really best placed to make that judgment?

We know that 222 children have gone missing from asylum accommodation. What are the Government doing to find those missing children, to prevent more children from going missing, and to meet their legal obligations to vulnerable children?

[Robert Jenrick]

For a few moments I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to approach this in an intelligent and constructive manner, but sadly that was the triumph of optimism over experience. In fact, the Labour party is trying to politicise this, and we can of course say the same. The Labour party has no plan to tackle illegal immigration. It does not want to tackle illegal immigration. The Labour party left a system in ruins in 2010, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would attest, as he had to help to pick up the pieces. We believe in a system of secure borders and a fair and robust asylum system in which all members of the public can have confidence.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Secretary’s conduct. Let me tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has consistently approved hotel accommodation. More than 30 hotels have been brought on line in the time for which my right hon. and learned Friend has been in office, which has ensured that thousands of asylum seekers have been able to move on from the Manston site and into better and more sustainable accommodation. And look at her record over the course of the last week! The population at Manston has fallen from 4,000 to 1,600 in a matter of seven days. That is a very considerable achievement on the part of the Home Secretary and her officials in the Home Office, and I am proud of it.

International Doctors: Visas

Debate between Stephen Kinnock and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Robert Jenrick]

Of course, adults who come to the UK on the Homes for Ukraine scheme have the right to work, and we actively encourage them to do so while they are here. There has also been an exercise across Government, which I have not been personally involved in, to help them to find equivalent professional qualifications while they are here, and to break down any barriers. I would be happy to look into whether there are remaining issues for doctors and nurses from Ukraine while they live here on the three-year visas that we are granting.

Some 30,700 nurses and 14,900 doctors obtained a health and care visa up to the end of August this year. In total, including care workers and other professionals, 96,000 such visas have been issued—a very significant number, which accounts for 52% of all skilled worker visas that have been issued to people taking up work in the health sector. I would like to think that that innovation has been a success, but we take seriously the legitimate concerns that have been raised in the debate and that we have heard from royal colleges and others. Let me now turn to some of those concerns and what we might be able to do to assist.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness said, the Royal College of General Practitioners has made a number of suggestions. We believe that the best way to increase the number of international GPs taking up places in the UK is for GP practices to register as Home Office-approved sponsors. The Government have run a number of engagement events that aim to explain the sponsorship process. Sponsorship is not supposed to be onerous, and the Home Office believes that it is not as onerous as some people clearly perceive it to be. Over 48,000 organisations are licensed sponsors of skilled workers, and many are high-pressure, small organisations, such as GP practices. However, there is clearly an issue—whether in reality or in perception—so I have two proposals to answer the concerns raised by my hon. Friend.

First, I am prepared to consider other sponsorship arrangements suggested by the sector, provided that they are consistent with the sponsorship system and that the sponsor can continue to discharge the important duties of a sponsor, which enables us to ensure that the overall system is robust and defensible. In principle, the sponsor could be an appropriate national body, such as Health Education England. It has not approached us to ask to be such a body, but I would be open to considering that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) suggested, the sponsor could be an integrated care board in England or an appropriate body in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, or it could be a royal college. I will therefore ask my officials to work with the sector to see whether there is a way forward to create umbrella bodies, if there is mutual support on both sides, with the caveat that any umbrella body would need to discharge the required duties in law to ensure the robustness of the system.

Secondly, in the interim my officials would be happy to run further engagement events with the sector to talk them through how straightforward they believe it is to be a sponsor. I encourage anyone listening to the debate to get in touch with the Home Office if they would like us to host an event in their area or with their part of the health sector. I have asked my officials to organise at least one such event in the weeks ahead. We will take account of any feedback that we receive at these events, and if it is true that the system is simply too complex and burdensome, I have asked them to report back to me with that feedback and we will take it into consideration.

The shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Aberavon —and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness, raised the fundamental question of whether five years is the right length of time to demonstrate an individual’s commitment to the UK. That is a profound question, and it is important that we approach it fairly, rather than hiving out individual sectors, however important they might be for our economy or our public services. Although I am sympathetic to the arguments around granting GPs settlement on completion of their training, my view today is that it is better to stick to five years because that has been, by the long-standing convention of this Government and their predecessors, considered the right length of time for an individual to demonstrate sufficient commitment to the United Kingdom to obtain indefinite leave to remain. We should value indefinite leave to remain, because it is an important and significant moment for anyone committing to life in our country.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for setting out that clear position, but does he agree that the nature of that kind of commitment—the three years, and the type of work that somebody studying to be a general practitioner is looking into and wants to do—is in itself a demonstration of something extra in terms of commitment to the United Kingdom? It is not as if they are coming here to work for a foreign company. Should such people not be given some kind of exceptional treatment because of the nature of the work? That is an open question.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Of course, one could apply that to a number of other regulated professions, whether that be lawyers, nurses or others making significant contributions to the United Kingdom. It is an important step to obtain indefinite leave to remain, and not one that we should give away lightly. Asking an individual to spend five years here in order to demonstrate that level of commitment to the UK feels to me about the right length of time, but I am open and interested to hear other contributions on that point. At the moment we do not have plans to reduce the length of time that skilled workers would need to complete in the UK in order to apply for settlement.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), raised a number of cases that I am aware of from my former role at the Department of Health and Social Care about allegations of the mistreatment of foreign workers—including doctors and nurses—coming to the UK. That is something we take seriously, and the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England are investigating. If I receive further information from the Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman.

On the broader question of the ethics of recruiting healthcare professionals internationally, the NHS takes that responsibility seriously. We have ethical guidelines nationally that are set by NHS England and individual trusts in England—that may well be the case in Scotland as well—and of course we take heed of the red lists, which give a strong indication of countries from which we should not be recruiting healthcare professionals because they clearly need them to satisfy their own healthcare requirements. The NHS proactively works with countries that have an excess of doctors and nurses, or that train individuals specifically for export. In fact, one of the last meetings I had as Health Minister was with the Chief Minister of the state of Kerala, which specifically trains nurses to be exported to other countries around the world.

That sort of arrangement is sensible and defensible by the UK, although it is not a sustainable answer in the very long term because we live in a globally ageing society; there will be competition from other states to recruit professionals. That is one of the many reasons we should be training more doctors and nurses in the UK and considering measures such as raising the cap on medical school places, if we are able to do so. That, of course, is a matter for the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care, not my Department. It is worth saying that it is an extremely expensive measure over time, and that the Opposition’s proposal would cost several billion pounds to deliver. That is not to say that it is not an important step, but it is worth bearing in mind the significant outlay.

[Robert Jenrick]

For a long time I have believed that one of the virtues of a national health service is that it should be able to plan for its workforce needs long into the future. My hon. Friend raises the specific campaign of our right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), when he was Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I am sure that he will consider that carefully now that he has his hands on the controls as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Minister rightly mentions value for money. The British taxpayer pays for the training of international medical graduates in this country. Will the Government consider doing a value-for-money assessment of what the British taxpayer pays for people who train to be GPs but end up leaving our system all together because of all the visa issues? Is that not a waste of taxpayers’ money?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. It really is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care. I do not want to stray too far into policy questions that are rightly its domain, but clearly the UK benefits from retaining as many doctors who train here as possible. Staying will not always be the intention of those coming to the UK—many clearly want to make use of our world-class medical education and then return to their country of origin, or other countries that, for lifestyle reasons, they want to live in—but we benefit from encouraging more to stay.