TOEIC: Overseas Students

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, but I point out to him that, far from this being a shameful scandal, what is shameful is that this was cheating on an industrial scale. The latest National Audit Office report confirmed that abuse of the system was widespread, and the 2012 NAO report indicated that “abuse was rife”. Of course, the Home Office also not only sought compensation from ETS, but received it. It is therefore absolutely imperative that we emphasise that this was criminal activity and that people have been imprisoned. As I said earlier, 14 more individuals are facing court action as a result.

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the responses that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee, and I want to emphasise his precise words. He spoke of

“a very small number, judging by the cases that have gone through the courts or come to the Home Office since 2014. Nevertheless, even if it is one individual who has been wronged, it is our duty to make sure that we are doing more to help.”

It is our duty, and that is absolutely what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to do.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Yet again, I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and his colleagues on the all-party group for their tireless work on the behalf of probably thousands of innocent people whose lives and aspirations have been ruined by this fiasco. The Minister is absolutely right that shameful cheating was going on but, as the National Audit Office said, the Home Office should have been just as robust about protecting the innocent as it was in pursuing the fraudsters.

It was positive on Monday that the Home Secretary talked about creating a new opportunity for those who have been wronged to have their cases reconsidered, so it is slightly alarming that the Government seem to have moved away from that approach in the past couple of days. He was wrong to talk on Monday as though the burden of proof should still be on those facing allegations of cheating, who should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Thanks to the work of the all-party parliamentary group, we know that assertions of cheating by ETS cannot be relied upon on their own in deciding whether someone is guilty, and the courts have frequently rejected the evidence of ETS, just as they have sometimes upheld it.

I was going to ask when the new mechanism will be up and running, but when will we at least have clarity about whether we are getting such a mechanism? If we are to have a new mechanism, will the Minister undertake that individuals will be presumed innocent unless there is significant evidence beyond a simple and unreliable assertion of cheating by ETS? Finally, to restore credibility and trust in the whole process, will the Minister consider giving responsibility for making decisions on such cases to an independent decision maker—people with the required technical and legal expertise—totally outside the orbit of the Home Office and the ETS?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I remind him that in 2014, before his time in this House, it was Parliament that insisted that the Home Office took urgent action to address what had been revealed as widespread cheating. It is important to find a mechanism that provides redress for those who may have been wrongly caught up in this. However, the independent expert, Professor French, indicated when he studied the matter that the likelihood of a false match from the voice checks was likely to be less than 1%.

The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the subsequent court cases, and evidence of an article 8 claim of a right to respect for family or private life led the courts to take a balanced decision in many cases that it was right that individuals should be allowed to stay, and that is absolutely what we are saying in the review of the guidance. We want to ensure that the Home Office, which I absolutely believe is the appropriate place for these decisions to be made, is making sensible decisions that properly balance any belief that deception was practiced against the wider circumstances. Where the circumstances are particularly compelling, perhaps when children are involved, it is important that we look to see what more the Home Office can do to help people put their claims forward.

Nationality

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful for the considered debate today and the interest that Opposition Members have shown in this remedial order.

As I said earlier, the scope of the remedial order is to make changes to nationality legislation and it is therefore narrow. It is limited to addressing the specific incompatibilities that have been identified by the courts. The Government will monitor any remaining potentially unlawful discriminatory aspects of nationality legislation, a point picked up on by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), and will consult as appropriate if it becomes apparent that further changes are necessary.

The Government are committed to ensuring that those individuals affected by the order do not face further discrimination. In its first report on the remedial order, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that those who had citizenship applications previously refused, because of the discriminatory provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981, which this order seeks to remedy, should not have to pay the application fee for a repeat application. I am pleased to say that I have written to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Committee, confirming that I plan to amend the fees regulation at the next opportunity to waive the application fee for this particular cohort.

Turning to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), he commented on children having to meet the good character test. This is a requirement for British citizenship as set out in the 1981 Act. It applies to those seeking to register as British who are aged 10 years and over at the time of application. That is because 10 is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Children as young as 10 can and do commit very serious acts of criminality, sad though that is and undoubtedly tragic for their victims. It cannot be right that such offences are disregarded when assessing a child’s suitability for citizenship.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I do not agree with the Minister on that point of principle, but even putting that to one side 50% of kids over 10 who are denied citizenship on those grounds have had that done on the basis of nothing more than a police caution, as I understand it. Surely it cannot be right to deny someone the right to citizenship on such a flimsy basis.

[Caroline Nokes]

I was just moving on to that particular point. The Government do not believe that the good character requirement for children is at odds with it the statutory obligation in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, but I want to make it very clear that having a criminal conviction does not necessarily mean an application for citizenship is automatically refused, particularly in the case of minor offences attracting an out-of-court disposal, for example, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a youth caution. Each case is considered on its individual merits and guidance for caseworkers makes it clear where discretion can be exercised.

On British overseas territories, we are very proud of our heritage in Britain and this pride extends to many people around the world who identify as British. The JCHR expressed concerns that the discriminatory provisions that this remedial order seeks to remedy will still apply to British overseas territories citizens. Regrettably, this is true. When changes to nationality legislation were made, they were introduced at a very late stage in the parliamentary process and there was no time to consult fully with the territories about introducing similar provisions for British overseas territories citizens’ status. It would not have been right to introduce legislation that would affect the territories, and potentially the status of those living there, without consultation. We recognise the difficulties that the British Nationality Act still presents for some British overseas territories citizens, who may wish to pass on their citizenship to their children and are considering how best to address those concerns, taking into account the opportunities for doing so. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Individuals in immigration detention are entitled to a free legal advice surgery of 30 minutes within the first 24 hours of their detention and to have as many of those surgeries thereafter. As part of the Shaw re-review of last year, we piloted automatic bail referrals after two months instead of four months, as previously.

I must correct my right hon. Friend: it is not lawful to detain individuals indefinitely. They may be detained only when there are realistic grounds for removal within a reasonable timescale.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Immigration detention is a hellish thing to inflict on anybody; that is especially true of victims of modern slavery and trafficking. Will the Government accept that the supposed safeguards, particularly the gatekeeping process, are just not working? Signs of trafficking and enslavement are not being picked up, as those 507 cases show. Even when they are, immigration enforcement factors are given greater priority.

What will be done to improve the malfunctioning gatekeeping process and when will an overhaul of the rule 35 process be completed? More fundamentally, for as long as we continue to detain people indefinitely in these awful institutions, should not decisions on whether to detain any individual and on who should be released be made entirely independently of the Home Office? At the very least, we need much stronger and faster independent judicial oversight.

[Caroline Nokes]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the rule 35 process operates effectively. In March this year, we launched our targeted consultation on the overhaul of the detention centre rules within which the operation of rule 35 is a key element; of course it is closely linked into the operation of the “adults at risk” policy. We continue to keep the detention gatekeeper function under close review, but I certainly think that it has shown an improvement on the situation before its introduction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

T5. A blanket three-year temporary leave to remain visa after a no-deal Brexit will not cut it, especially for students wanting to study courses that last longer than that. When will that be fixed so students have certainty that they can complete their courses?

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question on an issue that has been raised several times in the House. The Home Office is working hard to make sure that we have a solution so that not just students at Scottish universities but those in English universities who might be studying a longer course such as medicine, veterinary science or architecture are not disadvantaged. We are determined to find a solution that works for all students.

Immigration Detention: Trafficking and Modern Slavery

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

It is difficult for me to comment on the application to individuals, but I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman with a fuller response to that point.

Several comments were made about the reform of the national referral mechanism and the importance of ensuring that the NRM gets victims of modern slavery the support they need. We have made significant progress in delivering that complex reform programme, including the launch of the single competent authority, which is an expert caseworking unit responsible for all NRM decisions, regardless of an individual’s nationality or immigration status. That unit has replaced the competent authorities previously located in UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and the National Crime Agency. To improve the decision-making process, we have set up an independent, multi-agency assurance panel of experts to review all negative conclusive grounds decisions, adding significantly to the scrutiny such cases receive.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned the detention of children. I wish to reassure her that the UK ended the routine detention of children in immigration removal centres in 2010 and then enshrined that in primary legislation in the Immigration Act 2014. There remain limited circumstances in which children may be detained, but that is usually in a family unit immediately prior to removal. That requires ministerial authority should a family be detained for more than 72 hours, and there is a maximum of one week. I reassure her that this year—in 2019—no children have been detained at Dungavel immigration removal centre. There was one age dispute case, but the individual was found to be an adult.

The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned women in immigration detention, and we heard from several Members about Yarl’s Wood. On 6 June this year, the independent monitoring board published its Yarl’s Wood annual report for 2018. The IMB made positive comments about the continuing efforts at the centre to retain and recruit female staff and to improve healthcare provision. We have considered all the recommendations in the report and an action plan has been drawn up in response to concerns raised. We take our responsibilities towards detainees’ health and welfare very seriously. The provision of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week healthcare in all immigration removal centres, including Yarl’s Wood, ensures that individuals have ready access to medical professionals and levels of primary care in line with individuals in the community.

The hon. Lady also raised the specific issue of victims of trafficking from Nigeria. Last summer, or perhaps last autumn, I travelled to Nigeria and listened to harrowing accounts of people who had been trafficked. I also heard about some of the measures that the Nigerian Government were taking to address what is a very serious problem in that country. I am very conscious that there are significant numbers of Nigerians among victims of human trafficking found in detention in Libya or attempting to cross the Mediterranean. A disproportionate number of Nigerian victims of international trafficking come from Edo state in the south-west, where long-standing trafficking networks operate.

Modern slavery programming in Nigeria is a cross-Government effort, with each Department—the Home Office, the Department for International Development and the National Crime Agency—working co-operatively and focusing on areas of comparative advantage. The Home Office’s own modern slavery fund programme provides support and reintegration assistance to victims of trafficking and supports the judiciary to process trafficking. In addition, DFID funding has been directed to the International Organisation for Migration to rehabilitate victims returned from Libyan detention camps. That is a separate cohort of victims from those supported by Home Office funding. There is a real need for us to continue to work with DFID to help develop livelihood options for communities at risk of trafficking in Edo state and to help local government and civil society respond to trafficking there.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton raised some issues with rule 35 of the detention centre rules. We are committed to ensuring that the rule 35 process operates effectively as a reporting system for removal centre doctors’ concerns about the welfare of detainees. In March this year, we launched our targeted consultation on the overhaul of the detention centre rules. The operation of rule 35 is a key element of that and is closely linked to the operation of the adults at risk policy. Input from non-governmental organisations, the independent detention oversight bodies and medical experts will ensure that the replacement for rule 35 better supports the identification, reporting and caseworker consideration of people with vulnerabilities. In the year 1 April 2018 to 31 March this year, 2,146 individuals were the subject of a rule 35 report made by a medical practitioner.

Various hon. Members mentioned the adults at risk policy. In September 2016, we implemented the adults at risk in immigration detention policy, a key part of our response to Stephen Shaw’s original review of the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. The policy does not, as some have interpreted it as doing, mean an automatic exemption from immigration detention for any particular group of people. Under the policy, vulnerable people are detained, or their detention continued, only when the immigration considerations in their particular case outweigh evidence of vulnerability. Cases are reviewed regularly and also when new evidence comes to light.

I appreciate that there has been criticism of the adults at risk policy. However, as Mr Shaw said in his follow-up review last year,

“it would be folly to give up on the Adults at Risk policy. It is best thought of as an exercise in cultural change, and like all such programmes it will take time to reach full fruition. The focus on vulnerability that”

the policy

“has engendered is a genuine one”.

I believe that the policy will prove its full worth as it develops further and once it and the systems around it are in full alignment. Stephen Shaw made a number of recommendations for improvements in these areas and we are working hard, in conjunction with experts and in discussion with external organisations, to make the system as effective, protective and workable as possible.

It is worth remembering that the adults at risk policy replaced a policy that determined whether vulnerable people should be detained by reference to the concept of “very exceptional circumstances”. The difficulty with that approach was that nobody—caseworkers, legal representatives or detainees themselves—could interpret that in a consistent way. The adults at risk policy represents a much more coherent way of assessing the appropriateness of detention of vulnerable people and is a rational and proportionate approach.

Several hon. Members challenged me with the question, “What has changed?” That is a really important part of the comments I want to make and something I really wish to emphasise. We are committed to reducing the number of people in detention, to improving the welfare of those who are detained and to providing appropriate support to the most vulnerable in detention. Detention is used sparingly for securing the removal of individuals who do not have leave to remain in the UK, and people are detained for as short a time as possible.

We are detaining fewer people. At the end of December 2018, there were 30% fewer individuals in detention than a year earlier, and it is likely that that figure will be lower still this year. Over time, changes in legislation, policy and operational procedures will reduce the number of those detained and the duration of detention before removal, in turn improving the welfare of those detained.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister referred to work done in response to Stephen Shaw’s follow-up review. Will she confirm whether the Home Office is looking again at the gatekeeper process? Those 400 individuals who had referrals made after they were put into detention will all have been through that process, yet they did so without anyone picking up signs that they were a victim of slavery or trafficking.

[Caroline Nokes]

The gatekeeper function remains under close scrutiny. I and the many individual monitors who look at our detention system have scrutinised and continue to scrutinise the process of detention gatekeeping. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that if people have been through the detention gatekeeper function and still vulnerabilities have not been picked up, it is right that we continue to reinforce those processes.

When it comes to numbers, before 2015 there were about 4,200 detention beds in the estate. Since then, we have rationalised and modernised the estate. We have closed Campsfield immigration removal centre and reduced occupancy levels in the other IRCs, in turn improving staff-to-detainee ratios. There are almost 40% fewer beds—about 2,600 fewer—than there were four years ago, and they are of significantly higher quality.

Serco and Asylum Seeker Lock-change Evictions

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and providing me with the opportunity to clarify the current position in Glasgow regarding those who are no longer eligible for asylum support or accommodation.

The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing an asylum system that protects and respects the fundamental rights of those individuals who seek refuge from persecution. The Government are committed to working closely with communities and stakeholders to ensure that destitute asylum seekers are provided with safe, secure and suitable accommodation, and that they are treated with dignity while their asylum claim is considered. However, it is important to recognise that the majority of the affected cohort in Glasgow do not have status in the UK. They have sought asylum. Their claim has not been substantiated. They have exhausted the appeals process and they now need to take steps to return to their country of origin.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Even if some of these individuals have not qualified and have not met the technical definition of what a refugee is, that does not mean they are not vulnerable people, it does not mean they do not have significant needs and it does not mean they should not be treated with dignity. Why do we have a cliff-edge process that means that, if an asylum claim is refused, no alternatives are looked at and there are no ways to try to work with that person to ensure they are looked after properly?

[Caroline Nokes]

At no point have I said that these people are not vulnerable. I have tried to set out that they have had an asylum claim that has not been found to be valid and that they have been through the appeals process. If the hon. Gentleman will give me some time, I will move on to discuss the various means of support that are available, particularly to those we heard about earlier: those who are vulnerable, those who have medical conditions and those who have children.

The system that operates in Glasgow is the same system that operates across the United Kingdom and has been operated by successive Governments since the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Asylum seekers and their dependants who would otherwise be destitute are provided with accommodation and a weekly cash allowance by the Home Office while their asylum claim and any subsequent appeals are considered. This form of support is usually known as section 95 support. If an asylum seeker is granted refugee status, they are free to take employment and become eligible to apply for mainstream benefits in the same way as British citizens and other permanent residents.

If their asylum claim is refused but they have children at the time their appeal rights are exhausted, they remain on section 95 support until their youngest child reaches 18 years of age or they leave UK. Those without children who exhaust the appeals process lose access to section 95 support, but a very similar form of support, known as section 4 support, is provided so long as they take reasonable steps to leave the UK, or, importantly, show that there is a legal or practical obstacle that prevents their departure. Examples of such an obstacle include: those who are too sick to travel, those who need time to obtain a necessary travel document, and those who have made fresh submissions against the refusal of their asylum claim that have not been resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As I was saying, a small number of people have been granted refugee status, but it is absolutely right that they then move on from accommodation that is designated for destitute asylum seekers, so that the next cohort of asylum seekers can move into that accommodation, and those refugees—who have the right to stay, live and work in this country—move into accommodation that is appropriate for their needs and is not designated part of this asylum support accommodation, which is specifically designed for a cohort of people who are still in the claims process.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have also written to all Glasgow MPs with a direct line of contact to Home Office teams, who can work on a case-by-case basis should they have any questions or concerns. All applicants involved have been notified that they can contact their MP for advice and that their MPs have a direct line to the Home Office.

Some concern has been raised about the legal position in relation to issuing lock-change notices, which I would like to clarify. In July 2018, Serco commenced a process of reclaiming properties from those whose asylum applications had been decided and were no longer entitled to support. This was after a similar process had been successfully rolled out in the north-west of England.

The process of issuing a lock-change notice, if an individual refused to leave a property at the end of their entitlement, was paused pending a legal challenge in the Scottish courts. That pause did not affect people’s eligibility to receive asylum support, so those who became appeal rights exhausted or were granted leave to remain continued to receive the normal letter asking them to leave their accommodation. However, in that period, Serco did not follow this up by proceeding with lock changes if the individuals declined to leave.

In April this year, Lord Tyre dismissed two cases brought against Serco and the Home Office contesting this course of action. An appeal has been lodged and is currently sisted. As the cases were dismissed, Serco is now moving to resolve the circumstances of those staying in Serco properties. It is right that it does so.

Finally, I want to clarify the operational process, which I also set out in my recent letter to Glasgow MPs and MSPs.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister says that it is right for Serco to act in that way given Lord Tyre’s judgment, but surely it would be right for Serco to wait for the outcome of the further appeal. Will she also address the issue of funding for local authorities, with the Home Office having undertaken to work with local authorities to assess the impact of dispersal on their resources? Why has that work been kicked into the long grass?

[Caroline Nokes]

The legal action that was started last year and the judgement concluded in April this year did not provide a barrier to Serco continuing with this activity. It chose to pause it. The further appeal does not provide a barrier and the judgment was very clear. It is right that Serco should seek to make sure that accommodation designated for asylum seekers is available to those who fall into that category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I set out very clearly earlier—I cannot find the place in my notes right now—that Serco continued with the process because actually there was a cohort that came to everyone’s attention in the summer of last year, but between then and now there have been additional asylum seekers in Serco accommodation who have submitted new claims that have been found not to be substantiated. The process is not set in aspic; it continues the whole time. Different individuals will have come in and new claims will have been made by that cohort. The hon. Gentleman refers to other individuals who received notices to quit, but it is important to reflect that that might have been because their claims were found to be warranted and they were given refugee status and so needed to move into mainstream accommodation. There will also be those whose asylum claim was found not to be substantiated and were not in need of protection.

It remains the position that all of the cohort can apply for section 4 support at any time, and if they do, the process will be suspended until the application is considered and any appeal against its refusal is decided.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I think that Mr Deputy Speaker is concerned that we are about to use more time than I am permitted.

I am proud of the contribution that our country makes to providing accommodation and support to those seeking asylum. However, when the courts have decided that an asylum claim is not well founded, it is important that the support is available only if the individuals take reasonable steps to leave the UK, or if there is an obstacle to their departure. I am of course always willing to consider practical ideas about how we can further encourage those whose asylum claim has been refused to accept the offer of support on these terms.

Question put and agreed to.

Immigration

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I will take the hon. Gentleman back to the responses from Scotland to the consultation undertaken by the committee, which has held events in every region and every nation of the United Kingdom. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that the Migration Advisory Committee is made up of the most eminent experts there are in the country, but he will be aware that when we recruit to a vacant position on the MAC, which happens every few years, we are of course open to applications from every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

The UK’s measures on access to work, benefits and services have been in place and developed over many years of varying and successive Governments, and are consistent with the legislative frameworks operated by most other comparable countries. Opposition Members should be reminded that other EU member states are subject to an EU directive requiring them to have in place right to work checks and sanctions for employers of illegal workers, to protect potential victims of modern slavery.

Measures to restrict access to benefits and services are also designed to protect the taxpayer—a legitimate objective that has public support. A YouGov poll last year found that 71% of people support a policy of requiring people to show documents proving their right to be here in order to do things such as taking up employment, renting a flat or opening a bank account. Measures on the right to work and the right to rent are about tackling unscrupulous employers and landlords to protect the vulnerable, while also protecting good employers and landlords. That is in the interests of a prosperous and fair society that supports those who play by the rules, as well as protecting those who might otherwise be exploited. However, we are clear that these measures must distinguish effectively between those with lawful status, who are entitled to access work, benefits and services in the UK, and those who are here illegally. The Home Office is committed to improving how we meet the differing needs of the public we serve.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am tempted not to give way, because later this afternoon I will asking for the leave of the House to wind up the debate as well as open it. That will give me an opportunity to respond to points that Members have made in their contributions, which I hope will be more helpful than simply responding to an intervention.

[Caroline Nokes]

indicated assent.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she address head-on the High Court decision that the right to rent scheme is causing terrible discrimination in the housing market? How can she possibly defend the Home Office decision to appeal that on the grounds that the discrimination is justified in any way, shape or form?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Office is appealing that judgment, and given that there is live litigation, it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this point.

As I have said, we want our systems to become as simple and straightforward as possible. During the engagement I have held with employers on the White Paper over the last six months, I have been very conscious of the point the hon. Gentleman made about small and medium-sized enterprises, and the challenges they may find in engaging with the tier 2 sponsorship process. It is absolutely the Home Office’s intention to make all our systems far more straightforward and streamlined, and the comments I have received from employers will certainly enable us to build a system that I hope will be both responsive and quick. A challenge has been set—I think it was in the Chancellor’s Budget—that we want to be in a situation to determine the equivalent of tier 2 visas within two to three weeks. That will be a dramatic improvement, and one that I hope users of the system, and indeed small businesses, will welcome.

Refugee Family Reunion

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I absolutely agree and that applies not just here, but in other Parliaments around the globe, and this is about not just language, but tone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about the Reverend Davidson and the children brought here as part of the Kindertransport. Several months ago, I met Vera Schaufeld, who was a Kindertransport child. She had an immense impact on me and I am very much aware of the incredible work of the noble Lord Dubs in the other House, who has been an inspiration to many of us.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the Dubs amendment, and I remind him of one point. While we were discussing that amendment, he cited the figure of 3,000, but the Government were always clear that we would discuss the matter with local authorities and find common ground about the number of places that they had available. The final figure that was settled on was 480. We have always refused to give a running commentary on how we are doing on numbers, but it is important to reflect that at the start of 2018 we changed the qualifying date so that more transfers would be possible. At the end of last year, we removed the date altogether, so that we could continue our work with France, Greece and Italy to meet that commitment. Of course, there is still the challenge of best interests tests, where children must go through the process with the UNHCR. Sometimes that is not as swift as either I or the UNHCR would like.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) spoke about Abdul, who had settled in her constituency, and the heartwarming story that he had been reunited with his family. She said some very kind words about me, as did various other Members. It almost felt like this was some sort of swansong at the Dispatch Box, but I reassure hon. Members that the Scottish National party has called an Opposition day debate on immigration next week and some other Scottish colleagues will see me return to Westminster Hall the week after—I am not quite gone yet.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned resettlement in Strangford and the important role of faith communities. I am always struck by that, and it is not simply Christian communities. In Lambeth this week, I saw a number of resettled refugees, including one young Muslim woman from Syria who had been resettled in an apartment in the synagogue. It was an absolutely brilliant example of how faiths are working together. I am absolutely delighted to hear tales such as that, and what has really been impressed on me over the last year is the very important role of the faith communities, and indeed, of all those involved in community sponsorship, which has been such an important part of our schemes.

Let me turn briefly to the policy background, because I am sure that I am about to run out of time. I reassure hon. Members that we recognise the importance of family reunion, and our policy provides safe and legal routes to bring families together. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough cited a particular case, but over the past five years we have granted over 26,000 family reunion visas to family members of refugees in the UK. There are also separate provisions in the rules that allow extended family to sponsor children to come here. Where there are serious and compelling circumstances, refugees can sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them when, owing to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by relatives in the UK.

Child sponsors is an incredibly controversial issue and I am sure that it will provoke Members into seeking to intervene on me. It is important that we maintain the safety of children. Over the last six months or so, I have been really struck by the numbers of perilous journeys that have been made across the channel. In very many instances, children have been on board wholly unsuitable craft in the busiest shipping lane in the world. We know that those people have fallen prey to organised crime gangs and people smugglers and that they have paid enormous sums of money to have their lives put at risk. I am sympathetic to the view that we should carefully consider how we might expand our family reunion schemes, but I do not wish to do anything that sees yet more people and yet more children put in those terrible situations. We know that they are exploited by organised crime, and while we work hard with our colleagues here and abroad to ensure that there are arrests and convictions, it is an incredibly dreadful situation that we must seek to contend with.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Everybody across the House wants to avoid people having to turn to people smugglers to get anywhere around the globe, but the point made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) was that the rules, as they stand, force parents to turn to people smugglers if they are going to be able to join their family in the United Kingdom. It is having the opposite impact to what the Minister would like.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—the Whip is smiling at me. I just want to make the point, in slight defence of myself, that I am not blocking the Bill. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar knows that he must continue to persist with business managers, as I am sure he will.

In conclusion, I thank Members for their insightful and thought-provoking contributions. I will—I hope—continue to reflect on them in considering the Government’s approach on this going forward. I look forward to further debate on these points and others with hon. Members and stakeholders, who have made such an important contribution.

Illegal Seaborne Migration

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend will know that we always seek to deport foreign national offenders when possible. Our emphasis continues to be on returns and on ensuring that those who have served criminal sentences in the UK are deported when possible. That is not always the case, so this is about having returns agreements with other countries and ensuring that travel documents are available. However, it is our ambition, under the UK Borders Act 2007, to ensure that foreign national offenders are deported to their country of origin upon the completion of their sentence.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I certainly give a provisional welcome to what the Minister said about the possibility of extending the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, but we will wait to see exactly what is proposed. This is about safe, legal routes, so that people do not have to resort to smugglers if they are coming to the UK for legitimate reasons. Why are so many children having to wait many months in Calais to be transferred under the Dublin III scheme? Why is the Dubs scheme being wound down despite the fact that local authorities are saying that many places are still available for such vulnerable children?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Dubs scheme is not being wound down and that transfers continue. He will be aware that we have removed the date criteria, and we continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the best interest test to make sure that we can fulfil our commitment under the Dubs scheme.

The hon. Gentleman might also be aware that, at the end of May—I apologise for not having the precise date —we increased unaccompanied asylum-seeking children funding to £114 per child per night. We have worked tirelessly with the Local Government Association to encourage those who are not taking part in the national transfer scheme to do so, so that we can continue to make progress and fulfil our Dubs commitment.

Overseas Students: English Language Tests

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the brilliance of UK universities. I would like to point to the increasing numbers of Chinese and Indian students at the university in my constituency, Southampton, which has done a brilliant job of attracting students from overseas, as indeed have many other institutions countrywide. We do ourselves a disservice if we turn a blind eye to abuse and fraud within the student route. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, took strong action in 2014 to close down bogus colleges, and she was absolutely right to do so.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

First, I give my sincere congratulations to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) not only on securing this urgent question but on the manner in which he has relentlessly pursued this issue, which is finally getting the attention it has long deserved. For far, far too many people, this episode represents an absolute travesty of justice. When the Home Office discovered that ETS had completely failed to prevent widespread cheating—indeed, that some ETS staff were actively involved in facilitating it—it should have sacked the company and sought compensation from it. Instead, unbelievably, the Home Office asked ETS to mark its own dodgy homework and re-check the tests. How can that possibly be justified? The Minister referred to evidence, but in fact we are talking about the totally opaque say-so of ETS, on which basis the Home Office decided that thousands of students were guilty, and their lives were subsequently ruined. There is an abundance of evidence that a large number were totally innocent. They deserve an apology, and much more than that. Will she, at the very least, reverse the draconian repeal of in-country appeal rights that deprived many of justice? Will she agree to all that cross-party MPs have been demanding, including, as the right hon. Gentleman said, new tests and restored visas for those who pass, because that is the bare minimum that needs to be done to right this wrong?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will of course be aware of the expert report by Professor Peter French that concluded that false matches were likely to be very small—in the region of 1%—and more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt than to falsely flag people as having cheated. The courts have always said, even when finding against the Home Office on individual facts of a case, that the evidence was sufficient to make accusations of fraud. Of course he will recall from our exchanges during the passage through Committee of the Immigration Bill that this company was suspended from the immigration rules in July of that year and that the Home Office did take legal action against ETS in a case that was settled last year.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That argument was made by successive Ministers, but the idea that there is no indefinite detention because Home Office guidance says somebody cannot be detained forever is nonsense. Folk do not know how long they are being detained for; that is what is harmful —indeed, it is harmful for everyone, whether or not they are detained for more or less than 28 days. There is indefinite detention—this is surely a matter of semantics.

[Caroline Nokes]

I do not think it is a matter of semantics. Since becoming Minister, I have been careful to ensure that, in cases when people have been in detention for a long time—there are some, and they are almost exclusively cases of foreign national offenders—we regularly review and carefully consider the circumstances of those whom we seek to remove from the country but whom, for reasons of public protection, we deem it would not be appropriate to manage in the community. Last year, 92% of those detained left detention within four months, and 69% in less than 29 days, which demonstrates our commitment in this regard.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We are still talking about huge numbers of people—I think 10,000 or so were detained for over 28 days in 2017—but this is not just about those detained for more than 28 days. Whether people are detained for five, 10, 15 or 20 days, not know when they are getting out is harmful to their mental health, so this applies to everybody in detention.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am conscious that there are strong feelings on this issue. I am also conscious that in this country we have an ability to remove that in some cases is significantly better than that of our European counterparts and that we do succeed in removing people directly from detention. However, there are a number of challenges, which I will come to.

One significant challenge, and why I have such grave concerns about 28 days, is the time that it often takes to document individuals who may not have evidence of their identity or a travel document from their home country. It would be ideal if we could document people easily without their needing to be present, but unfortunately the vast majority of cases will require a visit from a foreign consulate, which takes time to arrange. In many instances, foreign consulates will not consider a visit until they know the individual is in detention. Although these are only management statistics, it has been indicated to me that it takes in the region of 30 days for an individual to be documented. In those circumstances, when it takes in the region of 30 days to get somebody with the appropriate travel document to be able to return, a time limit of 28 days would simply be unworkable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has made the point that there is not yet any agreement on reasonable time limits, given that, with both 90 days and 42 days—in this new clause we are discussing 28 days—there is a wide range of opinion on what a reasonable time limit might look like.

I wish to address—as I am sure the Chairman wants me to—the individual elements of the new clauses. First, and this has already been referenced, they would apply only to EEA and Swiss nationals. The effect of these new clauses would be to introduce a system that imposed time limits on the detention of individuals of certain nationalities but not on others. As I have said in relation to other amendments and clauses limited to EEA nationals, this would clearly be discriminatory on nationality grounds, going against Parliament’s proud history of promoting laws that protect human rights and protect individuals from discrimination. I cannot see any justification for Parliament to depart from those principles in the way proposed.

While new clause 1 would introduce a 28-day longstop time limit for exceptional cases, new clause 3 would provide for a 96-hour time limit. Both would have a major impact on our ability to remove and on the processes on which removal action is dependent. For example, in 2018, there were more than 8,500 removals directly from detention. More than 2,700 individuals were removed from the UK, having been detained for 29 days or more. We believe that introducing a 28-day longstop time limit would encourage people to change behaviours, so as to run down the clock to secure release. As it stands, a presumption of release after 96 hours, other than in the most restrictive of circumstances, would make it extremely difficult to remove any individuals from the UK.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Surely it is unfair to characterise the 96 hours as a time limit. It is simply a deadline within which there should be a bail hearing. I do not see how anyone can argue, if they support strongly the presumption of liberty, that there should not be some sort of judicial oversight about whether or not someone is entered into detention in the first place.

[Caroline Nokes]

I will come to that point shortly. There was an example that I wanted to use to demonstrate to Members some of the challenges faced, including the many claims for asylum made by people who had opportunities to raise those issues earlier, with some even claiming asylum on the steps of a plane. I will illustrate our concerns with reference to a case study provided to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in December. In that case, a failed asylum seeker absconded for nine years before re-establishing contact with the Home Office and lodging a new claim. This was unsuccessful, as were all the subsequent appeals and further submissions. The individual was detained after having been encountered working illegally. He then disrupted attempts to effect removal by refusing to leave the centre until removal was eventually achieved. It took 54 days to remove the individual from the point of detention, which would not have been possible had the time limits enshrined in these new clauses been in place.

Moving on to the further details of the new clauses and the point raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, the requirement for the judiciary to be involved in consideration of the case at or around the 96-hour point of detention would place significant additional burdens on the tribunal service. As it stands, bail cases are normally listed within three to six days. That means that a significant number of cases would fall outside the 96-hour period, and that is without taking into account the fact that there would be a dramatic increase in the number of cases being referred to the tribunal.

Such an increase would make the system unsustainable without significant reform, which could not be achieved within the three months before commencement proposed by new clause 4. However, the proposal would also require a different type of decision by judges, which would need careful consideration by the judiciary, given their independence.

We should not forget that detainees can apply for bail at any time of their choosing. Automatic referral for bail occurs at the four-month stage, and we are currently piloting automatic referral at two months. These bail hearings are supplemented by regular reviews and by case progression panels for those held in detention beyond three months. The new clauses would allow for an individual to be detained beyond the outcome of the initial bail hearing, though only for a maximum of 28 days in total, and only in very exceptional circumstances. These circumstances are not defined. I ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to consider whether he has in mind individuals seeking to frustrate the removals process. If so, what activity is regarded as frustrating the removal process, or does he have in mind individuals who are criminals? If so, how serious would the criminality have to be to justify continued detention? These matters are not clear, but they are fundamental to managing a detention system.

On the subject of criminality, let us assume that foreign criminals are intended to be included in the category of “very exceptional” circumstances, for the moment. The provision would allow the Government to detain such individuals for up to 28 days. At that point there would be no option other than release. No exceptions for dangerous criminals are built into the provision. If we could not deport individuals within 28 days, they would be released on to the streets, even if they presented a danger to the public.

The Government are under a statutory duty to deport foreign national criminals under the UK Borders Act 2007, and this duty would be seriously undermined if detention could not be used to effect removal. The same sort of issues would apply in respect of national security cases. The new clauses provide that an individual cannot be re-detained once the 28-day time limit has been reached unless there is a material change in their circumstances. What constitutes a material change is not defined. Again, these are serious matters on which the new clauses are not clear. For example, would it be possible to re-detain an individual who had been deported from the UK, but had re-entered in breach of the deportation order?

Would the failure of the person to comply with reporting requirements, or a breach of bail conditions, amount to “very exceptional’ circumstances? Finally, the three-month implementation timescale enshrined in new clause 4 is likely to be unworkable given the extensive changes to the immigration and judicial systems necessary to implement the envisaged changes.

The Government are of the view that the new clauses would significantly impair the UK’s ability to proportionately and efficiently remove from the UK individuals who have no right to be here and who, in some cases, represent a danger to the public.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I suspect that the Minister anticipated lots of interest in these new clauses. I want to take her back to the issue of foreign national offenders, which she went through very quickly. She must agree that it is not acceptable to detain low-level foreign national offenders for months or years on end.

What exceptions does she think are necessary in order to make general inclusion of foreign national offenders in a time limit acceptable to the Government? We cannot detain everybody for ever simply because the Home Office fails to remove them by the end of their sentence.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course it is not just unacceptable but not lawful, in the case of foreign national offenders, to detain people for very long periods with no realistic prospect of removal. The Home Office works incredibly hard, sometimes in difficult circumstances, to seek documentation from different Governments in order to be able to effect the removal of foreign national offenders.

I do not pretend that any of this is easy. However, an amendment to the Bill—tightly drawn as it is to end free movement—is perhaps the wrong place to seek to implement such a significant change. That does not mean that my mind is closed; far from it. From the views that have been expressed to me over the past 12 months and this morning, I appreciate that we certainly need to do more. That is why I welcome the proposals that Stephen Shaw put forward in his re-report last year. Indeed, the Home Secretary grasped those changes with enthusiasm. There will always be more to do on the issue of detention, and I am absolutely committed to doing it. As Stephen Shaw said in his recent report, the call for the 28-day time limit,

“has been articulated more as a slogan than as a fully developed policy proposal”,

and I am inclined to agree with him. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will speak to new clauses 40 and 54. I know that Members across the Committee will be enthralled by the prospect of an immigration rules advisory committee. Indeed, if new clause 54 is agreed to, I am sure that straight away, the Minister will be open to considering CVs from people who might serve on that committee.

As the shadow Minister said, the new clauses are all about increasing the level of scrutiny. New clause 40 would require an assessment of the impact of any changes to the immigration rules on modern slavery and on children to be laid before Parliament before the changes could be made. Just as significantly, it would give rise to the possibility of MPs actually being able to debate and amend proposed changes to the immigration rules. New clause 54 would put in place an immigration rules advisory committee.

The kernel of these ideas came from a recent report by British Future, which simply points out, as the shadow Minister has done, that changes to immigration rules have been rapid and incredibly complicated. The Home Office has made more than 5,700 changes since 2010, with the rules doubling in length over the same period. Little by way of explanation is provided to MPs when changes are proposed, and even less of scrutiny or debate. In such situations it is near impossible for most MPs to keep track of changes and to fulfil their role of scrutinising the Government’s work.

Social security offers a comparison with our proposal for an immigration rules advisory committee. Like social security laws, immigration rules are constantly changed by secondary legislation. However, there has been a social security advisory committee since as long ago as 1980. It has an independent remit to scrutinise draft secondary legislation on social security, making advice available to both the Government and Parliament. It has 14 members, who come from a wide range of professional backgrounds, and Ministers are usually required to submit regulations in draft to that committee, which may decide to scrutinise them formally. New clause 54 essentially copies the language of the enabling legislation for that committee and applies it to immigration rules.

While I welcome what the Minister and the previous Home Secretary have said about the need to simplify the immigration rules, we need to improve our procedures for scrutinising changes. Our new clauses offer two reasonable and practical proposals for exactly how that could be done.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for providing a further opportunity to discuss parliamentary scrutiny of immigration rules, which is raised in all three of these proposals. Parliamentary scrutiny is an important issue, and I am aware that Committee members are very interested in it. I will take each new clause in turn, but first I will briefly cover a few background points.

As Committee members will be aware, the detailed provisions on who is entitled to enter and remain in the UK, and on how to apply for such leave, are set out in the immigration rules. The rules are made under the power in section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. This power to change immigration rules, and the procedure for scrutiny of any changes, are long established. I remind hon. Members that the immigration rules were used, back in 2008, to introduce the points-based system that we currently operate.

I reiterate that none of the changes that we are making through the Bill are intended to affect that power or procedure. We will use that well-established power to set up the future immigration system once we have ended free movement and left the EU. I am in favour of parliamentary scrutiny of changes to the immigration rules, but I am not persuaded that there is any reason to depart from the existing scrutiny mechanism, which has been used to scrutinise all Governments, whether they are making minor or significant changes, for more than 45 years.

In addition, the new clauses are framed as applying only to those who lose their right to freedom of movement under the Bill. However, the Government have been clear that, once free movement ends, EEA nationals will be subject to UK immigration law, including the immigration rules. That means that all subsequent changes to the rules will potentially affect EEA nationals, so the new clauses would alter the parliamentary procedure for changing the immigration rules while purporting to be more limited.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister skirted around the fact that she thinks the current levels of scrutiny are absolutely fine, but without really drilling down into why. I wonder how many people in this room have ever looked at draft immigration rules that have been laid before Parliament. If they have done, how many actually understood what the draft changes were supposed to do? On the very few occasions I have managed to look at them, that has been hellishly difficult. Will the Minister explain why that level of scrutiny is appropriate?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that I said right at the beginning that I would give some background before delving into further detail. He need not worry; there is plenty to come.

I am committed to delivering a future immigration system that is fit for purpose and I acknowledge that in order to do that, we must put people first and make it easier for them to navigate our complex system. That is why the Law Commission has begun a consultation on simplifying the immigration rules; I look forward to receiving its recommendations later this year and seeing what more we can do in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister makes a fair point that it would not be realistic to apply that procedure to every single immigration rule change. One alternative would be to use the nice new committee that we are going to set up using new clause 54 to decide what form of parliamentary procedure would be necessary. For example, if a change to immigration rules was urgent, the committee could say that the Government could go ahead and make it, but if a change was more significant and not time-pressing, there could be a proper and full debate on the Floor of the House.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am just coming on to the hon. Gentleman’s proposals for a sparkly new committee. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to establish an immigration rules advisory committee. I appreciate the concerns behind the new clause. Establishing a new set of immigration rules that will apply to all EEA and Swiss nationals is a big deal, and we need to get it right.

We have made a clear commitment that a wide range of stakeholders, including Parliament, will have an opportunity to contribute their views on the future system before the final policy decisions are made. That will help to ensure that the relevant immigration rules work for the whole United Kingdom. Clearly, Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the rules throughout that process, using the well-established procedures that I have described. I note that we have never before had such an advisory committee for immigration rules. If the new clause were to be added to the Bill, we would not have a similar committee to scrutinise immigration rules that apply to persons who are not covered by the Bill.

As we have said, from 2021, the immigration rules will apply to EU and non-EU migrants alike in a single system that selects people on the basis of skill and talent, as opposed to nationality, so I regard such a committee as unnecessary. I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North see that their new clauses are unnecessary, and I invite the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to withdraw new clause 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will speak briefly in support of the broad thrust of the new clause—I might have suggested a slightly different approach—which effectively draws attention to the hostile environment, or compliant environment, as it is sometimes known now. Essentially, in the light of the court case that the shadow Minister referred to, it is now absolutely time that we have to roll back on the hostile environment altogether.

I stumbled across some of my notes from during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, when the Government essentially ignored all sorts of warnings about the right to rent and various other hostile environment measures and decided to press ahead. Thanks to the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, we have since found that the Government made next to no effort to monitor the impact of the measures they had introduced. That sequence of events is also exactly what happened with Windrush; warnings were ignored and the Government pressed ahead without looking at the consequences for the people they were warned might be adversely impacted. That is exactly the same as with the right to rent and other hostile environment measures.

I place on the record my congratulations and thanks to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Residential Landlords Association and various others involved in that case, which they have been fighting for a long time. Their briefings in 2016 were absolutely clear: their testing found that people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds were being discriminated against when they approached landlords, as was anyone who was not able to produce a British passport.

In the light of that scathing judgment from last week, surely the Government cannot just press ahead with the extension of hostile environment measures to EU nationals. Surely they must now say that they accept that judgment and intend to roll back from the right to rent and other hostile environment policies.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton for tabling the new clause, and I welcome the opportunity to explain how statutory eligibility controls operate for EEA nationals. The Government have made clear our commitment to protect the right of EEA nationals living in the UK before the new skills-based immigration system is introduced. While I recognise the intention behind the new clause, it is unnecessary. In some important respects, it is also technically deficient.

EEA nationals are already subject to the universal eligibility checks carried out by employers, landlords and the NHS. Those checks apply to everyone, regardless of nationality. EEA nationals currently evidence their eligibility to employers and landlords simply by producing their national passport or identity card. When accessing benefits and health services, they also need to demonstrate that they are habitually or ordinarily resident in the UK. We made it clear in our White Paper that EEA nationals will not be subject to additional requirements to demonstrate their status in the UK until the future skills-based immigration system is introduced. We recognise the importance of having an implementation or transition period to allow EEA nationals living here to secure their status in UK law by applying to the EU settlement scheme.

Importantly, the White Paper on the UK’s future skills-based immigration system also makes it clear that we will not require employers to undertake retrospective checks on existing employees when the new system is introduced in 2021. That is entirely consistent with the approach adopted by previous Governments when introducing changes to the checking arrangements. The new clause does not provide further meaningful safeguards to the commitments we have already given.

It is also important to highlight the fact that further secondary legislation would be required before EEA nationals could be compelled to produce evidence of UK immigration status in the same way that non-EEA migrants are currently required to do, to demonstrate their right to work or rent in the UK. Such legislation would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. I also reassure hon. Members that, in line with the draft withdrawal agreement, we will take a proportionate approach to those who for good reason miss the deadline to apply to the EU settlement scheme.

The new clause would also prevent NHS charges from applying to EEA nationals before 30 June 2021, or until 3 million people are granted settled status under the scheme. However, it makes reference to the National Health Service Act 2006, which applies only to NHS charges in England and Wales. The NHS in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be unaffected.

Charges have applied for NHS secondary care to people not ordinarily resident in the UK since 1982, except where an exemption from charge category applies. Entitlement to NHS-funded secondary care is based on ordinary residence in the UK, not nationality or payment of taxes. That means living in the UK on a lawful, properly settled basis, for the time being. EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are or become ordinarily resident in the UK are therefore fully entitled to free NHS care in the same way as a British citizen who is ordinarily resident.

In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the Government have made a unilateral offer on citizens’ rights. It is not dependent on EEA member states making similar assurances for UK citizens resident in those countries. Should EEA member states make less generous provision for UK nationals living or moving there, the new clause would result in a less favourable offer to EEA nationals in the UK.

The immigration exemption in paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 is entirely separate from measures designed to deal with eligibility checks on immigrants. It is a necessary and proportionate measure that we believe is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation. It can be applied only on a case-by-case basis, in limited circumstances, where complying with a certain data protection right would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of effective immigration control. It is misleading and unhelpful to frame the matter in such a way that it appears to be aimed at EU citizens. The exemption is a necessary measure, designed to protect our immigration system from those who seek to undermine and take advantage of it. New clause 11 does not provide any additional safeguards or assurances beyond those already planned or in place.

Finally, I want to respond to points made by hon. Members about the recent High Court judgment on the right to rent scheme. The scheme was introduced to defend an important principle. Those who have no right to be here should not be renting a property, and landlords should not be making profit renting to people without legal status here, which often happens in poor conditions. The Government consulted carefully on measures to require landlords to undertake right to rent checks. We developed the scheme in close collaboration with a consultative panel, which drew together experts from the sector. The scheme was trialled in the west midlands and rolled out to the rest of England only after a thorough evaluation, which was published in full in October 2015.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My recollection is that originally there was supposed to be a detailed assessment of that pilot before it was rolled out, but that after the election of 2015 the Prime Minister said it would carry on regardless. Where is the evidence that it has had any positive impact, or that it has not had a discriminatory effect, as the High Court judge found last week?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am minded, given the High Court judgment of last week, to be careful what I say about the issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I just go on to speak a little about the evaluation of October 2015, which included 550 responses to online surveys, 12 focus groups, 36 one-on-one interviews and a mystery shopping exercise involving 332 encounters. That evaluation found that there was no systemic discrimination on the basis of race. The law was, and remains, absolutely clear that discriminatory treatment on the part of anyone carrying out the checks is unlawful.

Despite that, as hon. Members have mentioned, on Friday last week the checks were declared incompatible with the European convention on human rights. We disagree with the finding and are appealing the judgment. We remain committed to the principle that if someone has no right to be in this country they should not be renting property. This country has a proud tradition of upholding and promoting human rights, and we have set the standard internationally for the strength of our legal protections against discrimination. The High Court decision is not something we should take lightly.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I was going to speak to new clause 43, which covers largely the same ground as new clause 13. The latter clause is probably better drafted, and the hon. Lady has given a comprehensive speech in support of it, so I will simply say that I approve of everything she has said.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

New clauses 13 and 43 focus on requiring the Government to report on the impacts of ending free movement and our future immigration rules, respectively, on European economic area and Swiss nationals. As I have said, I appreciate that some Committee members do not believe we should end free movement. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Wirral South, who spoke passionately on the matter.

I emphasise again that the Government fully recognise the great contribution that migrant workers make to the UK. We remain committed to ensuring that the future immigration system caters for all sectors, and that it benefits the UK economy and our prosperity. We want the existing workforce to stay and we want to continue to attract other international workers to the UK. That is why the White Paper contains a route for skilled workers —it will, for the first time, encompass medium-skilled workers as well as the highly skilled—and a temporary worker route, which will enable people of all skill levels to come to the UK for up to 12 months. Neither of those routes will be subject to a cap on the number of visas granted.

The Government take seriously the economic impact on the UK economy of the proposals that we set out in the immigration White Paper in December and other measures in the Bill to end free movement. These proposals are designed to benefit the UK and to ensure that it continues to be a competitive place, including for medical research and innovation.

I share the hon. Lady’s concern that policies are properly evaluated and their full impact considered. That is why the immigration White Paper contained a full economic appraisal, running to more than 50 pages. It is a serious piece of work, which I encourage all hon. Members to study carefully. However, although it is considered and well thought-through, that appraisal is, by its nature, predictive. The proof of any immigration policy is its actual effect, which can be established only once the policy is in operation. We need to understand how policies work in practice, how businesses and employers react and how individual prospective migrants behave. We also need to understand the prevailing economic conditions in the UK and the countries from which migrants might come.

The hon. Lady spoke of the quality of the debate in the referendum of 2016. I well remember some comments that were made at that time about the views of experts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I give quite a lot of credence to the views of experts, and accordingly I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment behind the new clauses. I am pleased to tell the Committee that the Government already have plans in place to ensure there is an annual review of the kind that is envisaged.

Hon. Members will see that there is a section in chapter 3 of the immigration White Paper on the future role of the Migration Advisory Committee. It says that the Government will commission MAC to produce an annual report on key aspects of the UK’s immigration system. That strikes me as a comprehensive offer, and I think it would be best for any annual review to be undertaken by MAC, which has a good reputation for its independence and, of course, its expertise.

Accordingly, given our existing commitment to a proper, thorough and independent review of the operation of the future immigration system, I hope that hon. Members who have tabled these new clauses will see that they are not required and feel able to withdraw them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Sheffield Central for tabling new clauses 15 to 18. I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for new clauses 33, 35, 47 to 49.

Before turning to the new clauses, I will say a few words about the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), to which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central referred and to which the House agreed unanimously last week. We and the EU have been clear that providing certainty for citizens is a priority. That is why we have written to the EU about ring-fencing the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the Home Affairs Committee last week, we should not underestimate the challenges involved in reaching such a joint UK-EU commitment. But we share a common goal in seeking to protect citizens’ rights. In the meantime, we will continue to seek commitments from the EU and its member states to protect the rights of UK nationals in the EU in the event of no deal.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central raised a number of points specifically on the settled status scheme and the ease of applications. I must, once and for all, put to bed the allegation that people will not be able to use their iPhones to apply. Individuals will be able to use any desktop, laptop or mobile device to make an application. It is only during this current phase of testing that people need to use the EU Exit: ID Document Check app to verify their identity, which is currently—I use that word advisedly—available only on Android devices. When the scheme is fully live at the end of March, the use of the app will be entirely optional.

The app is just one of several ways in which people will be able to verify their identity, including by post or face to face at an application centre. Additional routes that will be available to have identity documents checked include 50 locations where applicants will be able to have their passports scanned and verified. We are also rolling out additional digital support, which I saw in operation at the Barbican library some months ago, and a dedicated telephone advice and support service is also available. It is important to the Government that we make it as easy as possible for people to apply, and the Home Secretary continues to work very closely with Apple on the upgrades to its systems—not ours—required in order to have a chip-check device available on iOS.

There was a question about pre-settled status, which we grant to people with fewer than five years’ residence. This is a well-established rule that derives from the EU’s free movement directive: after five years, a person gets permanent residence. The draft withdrawal agreement specifically refers to these rules. The Opposition’s proposal would mean that a person here for a day, and with no intention to make their life in the UK, would immediately get indefinite leave to remain.

I turn to the new clauses tabled by hon. Members. The new clauses would give automatic immigration status to EEA and Swiss nationals—to whom I will continue to refer as “EEA nationals” for brevity—and their family members resident in the UK. As I have explained before to the Committee, this is called a declaratory system: individuals would automatically acquire status without needing to apply, but could subsequently register for a document if they chose to, in a similar way to how current free movement rights operate.

I welcome the fact that hon. Members share my aim to secure the rights of EEA nationals who are resident in the UK, which we all agree is of the utmost importance. The Government devoted a great deal of thought to how best to manage the end of free movement residence rights as we leave the EU. As I have explained before, a declaratory system is not the answer. As I explained to the Committee last week, in a deal scenario the EEA regulations that implement the free movement directive will remain in force until the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020 and will be saved for the six-month grace period thereafter.

In a no-deal scenario, clause 4 of the Bill will save the EEA regulations from the date when they are repealed by schedule 1, and these will apply for people who are resident before exit day. This will maintain their current position until the deadline for applying under the settlement scheme expires in December 2020, and will ensure there is no change in their status as a result of Brexit until then. EEA nationals and their family members will be able to secure their immigration status in UK law after EU exit through the settlement scheme, which provides a quick and easy way for EEA nationals and their family members to apply for and be granted status. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central pointed out, this will now be free of charge.

The overwhelming majority of EEA nationals will need only to prove their identity, demonstrate residence in the UK and declare any criminal convictions. We will work with applicants to ensure that they are granted the status to which they are entitled. The scheme has, of course, been designed to comply with the Government’s obligations under the European convention on human rights. I take such obligations incredibly seriously, and they are applied by default to everything the Government do. Although new clause 18 is well-intentioned, it is unnecessary.

Some hon. Members might think that a so-called declaratory system would be better for EEA nationals, as it would provide them with an immigration status without their needing to apply. Although I understand why hon. Members wish to make the new system as streamlined as possible, I disagree with the proposals for a declaratory system. As I have said previously, requiring EEA nationals to apply for and receive a formal grant of status via the settlement scheme is key to ensuring that life continues smoothly for them in the future. Resident EEA nationals will be able to use their settled or pre-settled status to distinguish themselves from EEA nationals arriving in the UK in the future. In addition, a declaratory system for the resident population would provide much less incentive to apply for status and thereby receive the documentation that will enable them to prove that status.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The incentive is there because, in order to be able to work, rent and access services, people will need to have a document that proves they have settled status. Can the Minister address what exactly is going to happen and what the status will be of the hundreds of thousands of people—we heard about them in evidence—who will miss the deadline if this system is not declaratory?

[Caroline Nokes]

We covered this point previously in the evidence sessions and also last week. The Government are absolutely determined to have a proportionate approach to those who miss the deadline and to assist those who have challenges through vulnerability, to make sure that they do indeed go through the settled status scheme.

It is important to us to reflect that people will want to be able to evidence their status here. However, at some point in the future we have to be able to draw a distinction between those who arrived before we left the EU and within the implementation period and those who arrived afterwards. Having a large proportion of this cohort legally entitled to a status but with no formal evidence to prove it would lead to confusion among employers and service providers and make it difficult for individuals to prove their right to benefits and services to which they are entitled.

In the longer term, it could also make it more difficult for them to prove that they have a legal right to reside in the UK. I am sure that Committee members will agree that that is not the outcome we want.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It does not make it one iota more difficult for people to prove their status, because they will be using the same scheme. The only difference a declaratory system makes is that on the day after the application deadline there will not be hundreds of thousands of people without status. It will be just as easy for people to prove their status because they are using exactly the same scheme.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is the Government’s intention for there not to be hundreds of thousands of people without status and to ensure that people are assisted through the scheme where necessary. I was alarmed earlier today to hear information about a councillor from the hon. Gentleman’s own party who was encouraging others not to apply. I am sure we would all agree that that is the worst piece of advice that any elected representative could give.

I have taken incredibly seriously the lessons learned from Windrush, where individuals became entangled in measures intended to tackle illegal migration precisely because they did not hold the documentation that they needed. It is absolutely crucial that people understand their immigration status and the basis on which they have a right to remain in the UK. We have been developing plans for the EU settlement scheme. As we have been developing those plans, we have received queries about various groups of EU citizens who believe that they were here lawfully, but who are not meeting the requirements of the free movement directive.

Last week, I used the oft-quoted example of the househusband who did not have comprehensive sickness insurance, or carers who could not demonstrate the role that they were undertaking. We are catering for cases such as those through the scheme, but it illustrates the peril of declaratory systems, which lull people into a false sense of security. The EU agreed that a constitutive system was a sensible option for the UK to take and other member states are following this option for UK nationals. The Government’s approach already achieves the purpose of the amendments. I ask hon. Members to withdraw new clause 15 and not to move the others, for the reasons outlined.

I turn to the other new clauses, which relate to the EU settlement scheme. I thank hon. Members for new clause 33, which seeks to remove any deadline for applications under that scheme. However, removing the deadline is not appropriate for a number of reasons. EEA nationals will benefit from applying to the scheme before the deadline, so that they can prove their rights in the UK. After the deadline, the future immigration system will be in place; future arrivals will have different rights from those of the resident population. Without a deadline, there would be little incentive for the resident population to apply. Reducing the incentive to apply might lead to an increased number of EEA nationals failing to apply for and receive a grant of status. Those individuals would consequently face difficulty in proving their right to benefits and services to which they are entitled.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is not addressing the point I am making; in fact, she is almost making contradictory arguments—that this will reduce the incentive to apply and create difficulties in accessing benefits, services and so on. That is exactly the point, though. The difficulty in applying for benefits, accessing services, accommodation and everything else is exactly the incentive that means that people will apply for status. Yet the Minister is seeking to argue both ways.

[Caroline Nokes]

I do not think I am seeking to argue both ways. I fear that with no deadline people will not see the need to apply, yet then might—in a moment of crisis or emergency—come up against the need to be able to immediately prove their status without having the ability to do so.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is the critical difference between the two proposals. Under the Government’s current proposals, at that critical moment these people will have no status, and—despite vague assurances about proportionate responses, whatever that means—many of these people will find themselves without any status at all. If our proposals are correct, at the very least they will have the right to be in this country at that moment of crisis. It will simply be a matter of getting a document to prove it, if they still have that ability.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman says that it is “simply” a matter of getting the evidence to prove status, but as we saw—I am loth to go there—with the Windrush crisis, there were people who had absolutely every right to be in this country but could not evidence it. We are determined not to repeat that with this scheme: the incentive is to encourage people to apply, to provide them with a deadline, and to make sure that as many as possible can evidence their status so that they are not doing so in an emergency situation. As I have said several times, we will take a pragmatic approach to those who have a good reason for missing the deadline by allowing them to apply late. That is a requirement of the withdrawal agreement, and we will follow the same approach in a no-deal scenario.

New clause 35 would require the Home Office to provide EEA nationals with a physical document evidencing their status under the EU settlement scheme. The digital status given to EEA nationals will be a secure and permanent record held by the Home Office that is accessible to the holder at any time, but which cannot be lost or stolen. Users will be able to choose to allow third parties, such as employers, to have time-limited access to relevant information to demonstrate their status. By giving individuals direct access to their own data and the ability to share this at their discretion with service providers, we are giving them greater transparency and control over which data is shared. People will be able to better understand their rights and keep information updated.

We have already trialled this service with non-EU-national migrants to view and share their right-to-work information with employers, and the service has been well received by those involved. With an online service, we can also ensure that employers and others required to check a person’s status see only the information relevant to their need. Using a physical document as evidence of status—as has been the practice to date—does none of this. It can also cause significant problems when documents are lost, stolen, damaged, expired or in the process of being renewed. Physical documents are also more open to forgery and fraud: something we must seek to avoid.

Additionally, there are individuals whose documents are controlled by others, such as in cases of domestic violence, modern slavery and human trafficking. Moving to an online status is a step forward in tackling those who seek to control others. A digital status is also much easier to use for the visually impaired and dyslexic users who may have difficulty reading a physical document.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

There are some valid points in what the Minister says, but surely there is a compromise here. Could there not be the online system but some sort of physical document parallel to that, so that we had the best of both worlds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston for tabling the new clause on behalf of the right hon. Member for East Ham. The new clause relates to the use of certificates to evidence knowledge of English. It raises an important issue, and I would like to explain the Government’s response to widespread abuse of English language testing facilities, which came to light in 2014.

The scale of the fraud—there is no doubt it was a fraud—is illustrated by the fact that so far more than 20 people have received criminal convictions for their role in facilitating the deception, and sentences totalling more than 60 years have been handed down. Further criminal trials are ongoing. There was also a strong link to wider abuse of the student visa route. The majority of individuals linked to the fraud were sponsored by private colleges rather than universities, many of whom the Home Office had significant concerns about well before “Panorama” uncovered the specific fraud. Indeed, 400 colleges who had sponsored students linked to the fraud had already had their licences revoked prior to 2014.

The Educational Testing Service had its licence to provide tests within the UK suspended in early February 2014 and was removed from the immigration rules on 1 July 2014. Approximately 20% of the tests taken in the UK were provided via ETS prior to its suspension.

During 2014, ETS systematically analysed all the TOEIC tests administered in the UK dating back to 2011 and classified them as either questionable or invalid. ETS categorised results as questionable where it had significant concerns about the test centres and sessions where they had been obtained.

We have always recognised that it was possible that a small number of students who took legitimate tests could have received a questionable result. That is why we ensured that those people were given the chance to resit a test or attend an interview before any action was taken against them. ETS categorised results as invalid only where the same voice was matched to two or more tests taken in different names, indicating that deception was likely to have been used.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

All this was a good few years before the Minister’s time in office, but was one of the fundamental problems here that the big multinational company responsible for messing up the test in the first place was then handed a blank cheque to mark its own homework afterwards? Why was that not handed to a completely independent body, rather than just letting ETS fix its own mess? How much did it have to pay in compensation to the Home Office?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reject the description of a global company making a mess of it. This was systematic fraud and deception—I indicated earlier the number of criminal convictions. This was not a mess; it was fraud. It is really important to remember that.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It was a fraud, absolutely. It was far too easy to perpetrate. People employed by that company or at least subcontracted further down the line by that company were assisting people with their tests and allowing different people to sit the tests. The safeguards that the company put in place were clearly way short of what was required. It made a mess of things.

[Caroline Nokes]

That is absolutely why that company was suspended from the immigration rules in July of that year, which is perhaps evidence of why occasionally it is useful to use the immigration rules as a very swift device to resolve problems. I would point out that the report on the ETS system, which was undertaken by Professor Peter French, concluded that the number of false matches was likely to be very small and it was more likely that people were given the benefit of the doubt than that they were falsely flagged as having cheated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

We support these amendments. I make two brief comments. First, the EU settlement scheme will entail an enormous amount of data sharing between the Home Office and other Departments. It is right that the terms of this data sharing should be transparent. Secondly, the possibility of EU citizens’ data being passed on by the Home Office has understandably caused concern among those citizens. We do not want to create any barriers to EU citizens applying for settled status. Getting a high take-up rate is already going to be extremely difficult. Providing for explicit consent for data to be shared or reused would be a sensible limit on Government powers.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for their new clauses 24 to 29 and 31. Given the similar effects of some of these new clauses, I will consider new clauses 24 to 28 and 31 together before speaking to new clause 29 separately.

These clauses cover a broad range of issues, including the gathering and using of data and matters relating to the automated residency checks under the EU settlement scheme. As I have said previously, securing the rights of citizens has always been our priority and we have delivered on this commitment. The draft withdrawal agreement published on 14 November 2018 guarantees the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK, and those of UK nationals living in the EU.

The basis of the withdrawal agreement aligns closely to that of existing free movement rules with respect to when a person becomes a permanent resident and, in the case of the EU settlement scheme, acquires settled status. Significantly, the withdrawal agreement states that this assessment should be based not only on length of residence but on the fact that a person is exercising EU treaty rights for the whole qualifying period. We have, however, gone further than this and are being more generous to all EU citizens in the UK and to those who arrived during the implementation period. We do not test whether a person is exercising treaty rights—for example whether they are in work, studying or have comprehensive sickness insurance. Eligibility is based on residence alone, subject to criminality and security checks.

As part of the application process we will, where an applicant provides a national insurance number, conduct an automated check of residence based on tax and certain benefit records from HMRC and the DWP. We know that most EU citizens will have had some interaction with these departments and that this could demonstrate an applicant’s residence, either for the whole five-year period to qualify for settlement, or in part. While it is optional for an applicant to use the automated checks to prove their period of residency, in the test phases most have done so.

To date, 80% of the decisions made have been on the basis of this data alone. Where data exists, the automated checks replace the need for the applicant to submit any other form of evidence. The automated checks happen in real time as the application is completed, and the applicant is informed whether there is enough data to qualify for either settled or pre-settled status. Feedback from the three trial phases to date shows that people overwhelmingly like the simplicity of having their residence proved for them by these checks. The applicant is immediately informed if they need to provide additional documents and prompted to provide such documentation before completing their application.

In such instances, we will accept a range of documents as evidence, and they can be submitted digitally as part of the online application process. Where the applicant accepts the result of the automated check, no further evidence is required, and they will, subject to identity, security and criminality checks, be granted either settled or pre-settled status. The rules for assessing continuous residence are already set out in the immigration rules. The automated checks simply apply those principles to the data provided by HMRC and the DWP. New clauses 26 and 28, although well intentioned, are therefore unnecessary.

I understand the sentiment behind new clauses 24, 25 and 27, on publishing details of the automated residency checks in the scheme, as well as our memorandum of understanding with HMRC and the DWP. We will of course be completely transparent on how those checks work, as it is to everyone’s benefit for us to do so. I confirm that we will publish the MOU before the scheme is fully launched. We will also publish further materials, including more guidance on why automated checks may not return the expected data. The EU settlement scheme is still in the test phase, and it is important that we continue to amend our processes and design as we progress through the phased roll-out. I hope that offers reassurance to hon. Members.

On new clause 31, it may be helpful if I explain the different stages of the application process. When an applicant receives a wholly or partially unsuccessful result from the automated residency check, they are still in the middle of the application process and they have completed only some of the online form. They have therefore not yet submitted an application. Informing an applicant of why data has not matched is likely to increase the risk of fraud and identity abuse. The new clause would change the focus of the scheme from granting status to investigating the data quality of employers or of the DWP and HMRC. We consider that a distraction that would cause unnecessary delays for applicants.

I am sure all hon. Members on this Committee share my desire to keep the application process simple and quick in providing results. For the reasons I have given, the new clause is not consistent with those aims. In most cases, it would be far simpler and more straightforward for applicants to submit other evidence to prove residence, rather than seeking to resolve why data has not matched. Of course, the applicant can take up that issue with HMRC or the DWP if they wish. It is already the case that applicants, like anyone else, can ask Government Departments what data is held about them and get incorrect information rectified, as per article 16 of the general data protection regulation.

Our guidance includes a suggested list of documents that could be provided as additional evidence. Examples include bank statements, a letter from a general practitioner, and certificates from school, college, university or an accredited educational or training organisation. I assure hon. Members that we will continue to work to improve the match rates of the automated checks. The test phase gives us the opportunity to test the EU settlement scheme and to make improvements to the process.

New clause 29 seeks to prevent information from those who apply to the EU settlement scheme from being passed to immigration enforcement. Let me confirm that we fully comply with all statutory responsibilities when processing data. The ways in which this information may be processed are set out in the Home Office’s “Borders, immigration and citizenship: privacy information notice”, which is available on gov.uk. Decisions on whether information should be shared with immigration enforcement are made on a case-by-case basis. It is important that the Home Office uses data in ways that are compatible with the purpose for which it is collected—for example, to assist future citizenship and passport applications and, if needs be, to combat immigration offences.

To conclude, I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues, but I hope the assurances I have provided will lead them not to press their new clauses.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed answers, and particularly the undertaking to publish the MOU. I obviously need to take all that away and give it further thought, but there seemed to be a lot of helpful answers and pointers in there, so in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Extension of the remit of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

“(1) The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration shall have a remit to inspect any Government department insofar as the department is involved in the EU Settlement Scheme application process.

(2) Government departments in subsection (1) shall include the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs insofar as they are involved in the automated residency checks for the EU Settlement Scheme.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This new clause would mean that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration could inspect Government departments if they were involved in the EU Settlement Scheme application process.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

This is a sensible amendment. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration plays a vital role in inspecting and reporting on Home Office activities. Where the EU settlement scheme overlaps with other Departments, it is important that the inspector has the remit to inspect those. There is some ambiguity about the oversight of the EU settlement scheme if there is no deal. The withdrawal agreement makes it clear that if there is a deal, there will be an independent monitoring authority established to oversee the scheme.

The Minister, in her letter to me on 31 January, set out that if there is no deal, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration will fulfil that function. Will they get any additional funding to carry it out? Will the Minister expand their remit to cover other Departments, to make sure the inspections are not limited in scope?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for new clause 30. However, it is unnecessary. The UK Borders Act 2007 allows the independent chief inspector to inspect the efficiency and effectiveness of services provided by any person acting in relation to the discharge of immigration, nationality, asylum and customs functions. The EU settlement scheme is primarily an immigration function. Therefore, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration already has the powers to inspect Government Departments involved in the EU settlement scheme application process, and that includes activities undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in support of the EU settlement scheme application process. I therefore request the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for answering my questions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

No fees for applications under appendix EU to the Immigration Rules

“(1) No fees shall be chargeable for any EEA or Swiss national making an application for leave to remain (whether for settled status or pre-settled status) under appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.

(2) No fee shall be chargeable for any EEA or Swiss national seeking an administrative review of a decision to reject an application for leave to remain under appendix EU of the immigration rules (whether for settled status or pre-settled status), or to exercise a right of appeal against any such decision.

(3) No fee shall be chargeable for any new or alternative scheme introduced for EEA or Swiss nationals in place of appendix EU to the Immigration Rules.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This new clause would ensure that the Government’s commitment to scrap the settled status fee, and extend the principle to any review or appeal, or any alternative scheme set up to replace appendix EU, is legally binding.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

We support all these new clauses. I will speak briefly on new clause 38, which is in my name.

New clause 38 has three distinct provisions. The first would ensure that EEA and Swiss nationals applying for a visa are not charged above the cost price for that visa. As with many of our amendments, we would prefer that this apply to all migrants, but the scope of the Bill required us to narrow the new clause. The Home Office makes a profit of up to 800% on immigration applications from families, many of whom will not be well off. These applications will often be turned down on technicalities, forcing families to apply and pay again. As EEA nationals join migrants from the rest of the world coming into the UK under work visas, the risk of debt bondage increases. If workers are required to pay high fees for work visas, they will be vulnerable to exploitation and may be left working to pay off debts to recruiters.

The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has completed an inspection of policies and practices relating to charging and fees. According to his website, he sent the report to the Home Office on 24 January. It would have been helpful to have it in preparation for this discussion. Can the Minister tell us when her Department will publish the report?

The second part of the new clause stipulates that no child with entitlement to register for British citizenship should be required to pay a fee. The principle is that those children, given their entitlement to British citizenship, will not be required to pay fees to realise that entitlement. This was the intention of the British Nationality Act 1981, which ended the principle that being born in the UK in itself makes someone British, when it gave no discretion to the Secretary of State, other than the formal role of registering the citizenship of any person with the entitlement.

The third part of the new clause would require that anyone naturalising as a British citizen should not pay above cost price. It is important to keep the questions of immigration and nationality separate, and to keep entitlement and naturalisation separate as well, despite the Government’s attempt to blur that distinction.

The fees are now £1,012 for children and £1,206 for adults. That is an enormous amount, and it disproportionately affects BME people and children under local authority care. The effect of being unable to pay these fees is that British people are subject to the hostile environment, including detention and temporary deportation, which is wholly unjust.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and for Manchester, Gorton for having tabled new clauses 32, 38, 39 and 45.

It may be helpful to provide some background on this issue. Fees for border, immigration and citizenship products and services have been charged for a number of years, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system that minimises the burden on taxpayers. Each year, income from fees charged contributes enormously towards the running of our border, immigration and citizenship system. The charging framework for visa and immigration services delivered £1.35 billion in income in the last financial year. It is therefore true to say that fees paid by users play an absolutely critical role in this country’s ability to run an effective and sustainable system, and as I am sure members of the public rightly expect, to minimise the burden on UK taxpayers.

I also want to explain from the outset that we already have a legislative framework in place that governs fees. Fees are set and approved by Parliament through fees statutory instruments made under powers in the Immigration Act 2014. As hon. Members will be aware, the Prime Minister publicly confirmed that

“when we roll out the scheme in full on 30 March, the Government will waive the application fee so that there is no financial barrier for any EU nationals who wish to stay”—[Official Report, 21 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 27.]

We will be amending existing fees legislation to implement that decision.

Outside of applications made under the EU settlement scheme, immigration and nationality fees legislation has always provided for some limited exceptions for paying application fees for limited and indefinite leave to remain. However, those exceptions are limited to specific circumstances, such as for those seeking asylum or fleeing domestic abuse, or where the requirement to pay the fee would lead to a breach of the European convention on human rights. Fee exceptions do not extend to applications made by individuals who are seeking to register or naturalise as a British citizen. That is because becoming a citizen is discretionary and not necessary to enable individuals to live, study and work in the UK, or to be eligible to benefit from appropriate services. Other exemptions are provided by separate regulations governing the immigration health surcharge.

To make provisions that are specific to certain nationalities as part of this Bill would be unfair to all users of the border, immigration and citizenship system.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

There have been a number of amendments where the Minister has made the point that it would be unfair to apply the provisions to EEA nationals only. We are, of course, constrained by the Bill, but if any unfairness arises from our new clauses and amendments, it is open to the Government to amend the Bill further, and even to amend the long title of the Bill. I am sure the Minister would have support from across the Committee in doing so.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind invitation. He will be aware that it is part of my duty under the Bill to make sure that we end free movement. The scope of the Bill is pretty much limited to that. As he highlighted, I do not want us to lead to a position where the Home Office discriminates against people on the basis of nationality.

I want to address some of the specific points relating to each new clause. Subsections (1) and (3) of new clause 32 provide that no application fee shall be chargeable under the EU settlement scheme, or for any successor scheme. While I am sympathetic to the intention behind subsection (1), I do not consider it necessary. We have a clear legislative framework in place for fees payable under the border, immigration and citizenship services. Therefore, new clause 32 would cut across the existing statutory framework for fees and would risk undermining the coherence of the current system.

Secondly, new clause 32 provides only for the removal of the application fee under the EU settlement scheme, which will only come into effect for applications made after the Bill is passed. As I have said, we are going further than that, and the announcement the Prime Minister made on 21 January makes it clear that the changes we are working to introduce through the fees regulations and the immigration rules will enable us to refund all EU settlement scheme application fees that have already been paid. The new clause is therefore to be unnecessary.

I will now turn to subsection (2) of new clause 32, which provides that EEA and Swiss nationals should not be charged a fee to appeal, or to administratively review, a decision not to grant settled status under the EU settlement scheme. I shall deal with administrative review and appeals separately. We have already discussed administrative review of a decision under the EU settlement scheme, for which the fee is set at £80 per review—the same fee that applies to administrative reviews of other immigration decisions. Where an administrative review is successful because there was a casework error in the original decision, the applicant will have their fee refunded.

In the context of applications under the EU settlement scheme, the right to an administrative review goes even further. An applicant who has been granted pre-settled status, but who believes that they qualify for settled status, can submit additional information that will be considered as part of their review. However, if the applicant cannot or does not wish to pay the fee for an administrative review, they have the alternative option of submitting a fresh application under the EU settlement scheme, which will be free. I therefore consider this part of the amendment to be unnecessary, because remedies that are free of charge are already available and if the administrative review is successful, the fee is refunded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We are talking about children who are entitled to UK citizenship, and it is wrong to say that alternative ways—long routes to settlement, costing many thousands of pounds—are an adequate alternative. We are talking about something that is precious to those children, and I urge the Minister to give us some indication of when the ongoing review might conclude.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is aware that the Home Secretary has said that he is keen to review the situation and keep our fee structure under careful consideration, but I regret that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a deadline.

It is right to point out that we already provide exemptions for eligible individuals who apply for limited and indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That is a reflection of the fact that in some circumstances, grants of such leave are necessary to enable an applicant to enjoy his or her human rights—for example, where a person is destitute or there are exceptional financial circumstances, often relating to the welfare and best interests of a child.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Those exemptions are good and it is absolutely right to have them, but why not have the same exemptions for kids who are entitled to British citizenship and who are supported by a local authority, or whose families are destitute? They are entitled to British citizenship. Why deprive them of it?

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have indicated, the Home Secretary is keen to keep the matter under review. We are looking closely at it, and particularly at child citizenship fees. In summary, the requirement to pay a fee for citizenship does not disproportionately interfere with human rights, because of the exemptions I have described. The requirement to pay a fee is not contrary to a child’s best interest, which is to be with their family. Not having citizenship does not prevent them from doing so. Any assessment of a child's best interests is intensely fact-sensitive, so it cannot be said, as a generalisation, that it will always be in a child’s best interests to acquire citizenship. It may, for example, be in his or her best interests to preserve links to another country. As I have set out, the proposals undermine our existing statutory framework for making provision relating to fees and charges in the Bill.

New clause 45(1) raises many of the same issues about British citizenship fees for EEA nationals as new clause 38(3) did, and I refer the Committee to my earlier comments. New clause 45(2) and (3) provide that the Secretary of State may not charge the child of a person who has exercised free movement rights, which are repealed by this Bill, a fee to register as a British citizen if that child is in receipt of local authority assistance or if that child or their parents cannot afford the fee. That addresses a point similar to that in new clause 38(2). I refer Members to my previous point: the Bill is not the appropriate place to address child citizenship fees, which we are considering in the round.

New clause 45(4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to make persons who have exercised free movement rights aware of their rights to obtain British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981. Information about becoming a British citizen is already published in guidance on gov.uk, and we are committed to ensuring that information of that nature is fully accessible.

It is right that, in the run-up to and immediate aftermath of the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government’s communications focus on the EU settlement scheme and what EEA nationals in the UK need to do to secure their status. We are launching a wide-ranging marketing campaign to encourage EEA nationals to apply. We do, however, make it clear when explaining the rights afforded by settled status that they may include a right to apply for British citizenship, provided that eligibility requirements are met. I hope that that reassures the Committee that we are taking steps to make people aware of their rights.

I turn to new clause 39, which concerns the immigration skills charge. Hon. Members may be aware that the charge was introduced in April 2017 as part of a major reform of the tier 2 skilled worker route. It is designed to ensure that UK-based sponsoring employers make a contribution to the upskilling and training of the resident workforce. Investing in skills is vital to achieving our ambition to increase UK productivity.

Data shows that, on average, employers in the UK under-invest in training compared with other countries. The Government have always been clear that it is right that employers should be incentivised to contribute to the upskilling and training of workers, and we have taken a carefully considered approach to the application of the charge. That is why we have provided exemptions for employers sponsoring migrants working in PhD-level occupations, as specified in the immigration rules; students switching from tier 4 to tier 2 to take up a graduate-level position in the UK; and the intra-company transfer graduate trainee category. Those exemptions build on the Government’s strong post-study work offer for international students and are intended to protect the UK’s position as a centre of excellence for education and research.

Underlying MAC’s recommendation in its final report on EEA migration, which was published last September, is the importance of retaining the charge as a key counterbalance to the recommended abolition of the resident labour market test in the proposed future skilled worker route. This will ensure the continued protection of resident workers in the future system and will provide one element of control after free movement has ended. New clause 39 runs directly contrary to the advice of MAC, which believes that it would be appropriate to apply the charge to EEA nationals in the future.

It is important to note that in the future system, the charge will apply only to employers that sponsor migrant workers under the skilled worker route. It will not apply to individual migrants who may come to the UK to work temporarily under the transitional temporary work route, and who will not be sponsored by an individual employer.

As Committee members are aware, the Government are not complacent. We have set out our intention to engage with businesses and organisations over the next 12 months, and to listen to their concerns and thoughts in response to the proposals in the White Paper. Accordingly, for all the reasons I have given, I invite the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the new clause.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the Minister for her detailed answers. There was a lot of helpful information in there, but there was also a lot that I do not agree with and am not yet quite persuaded about. I will certainly persist, particularly on fees for the registration of children as British citizens, but that is for another day. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Derived Rights

“(1) Any person who has resided in the UK with derived rights under relevant EU caselaw shall be treated for the purposes of an application for leave to remain under appendix EU of the Immigration Rules (whether for settled or pre-settled status) on the same basis as an EEA or Swiss national who has resided in the UK.

(2) In this section, ‘relevant EU caselaw’ means—

(a) Zambrano (Case C-34/09 of the European Court of Justice);

(b) Chen (Case C-200/02);

(c) Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira (Case C-480/08).”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This new clause would mean that non-EEA nationals with derived rights under EU caselaw would be treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who had resided in the UK when applying for settled or pre-settled status under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will be even briefer, which I am sure will be generally welcomed. We support the new clause, which concerns an important group of people with derived rights who have been left without certainty about their position. There is a strong imperative for that to be resolved, and for us to extend the same rights to them as to others.

[Caroline Nokes]

I, too, will be as brief as I can. I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for their new clause 37, which seeks to give those with a derivative right of residence access to the EU settlement scheme.

It may be helpful if I explain that a derivative right of residence is one that stems from the EU treaties rather than from the free movement directive, and it has been established through Court of Justice of the European Union judgments. The rights identified by the Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases are protected by the draft withdrawal agreement. The rights of Zambrano carers are not protected by the agreement.

The Government have been clear that provision will be made in the immigration rules for individuals currently resident with a derivative right of residence. I fully appreciate that those people need certainty about their status. We are resolving the final details within Government, in consultation with other affected Departments. Subject to securing my colleagues’ agreement, I expect to be able to confirm the position for that cohort in the immigration rules to be laid before Parliament shortly.

In summary, the Government agree that we need to protect the rights of those who are resident here on the basis of derivative rights. We have already committed to making provision for them in the immigration rules, and we are just finalising precisely how we will achieve that. I hope to have further positive news for the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East shortly. For that reason, I ask him to consider whether it is necessary to press the new clause to a vote.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That just goes to show that short exchanges can be useful. The only thing I would add is that I hope the Home Office scheme for these groups of people is as generous as possible and does not, for example, set them off on long routes to settlement with thousands of pounds of charges in between. I hope they are offered something close to, if not exactly the same as, what is offered to EEA or Swiss nationals. I am grateful to the Minister for her answer, and I look forward to finding out more very soon. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 44

No comprehensive sickness insurance requirement

“Rules in Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, or any replacement scheme, may not include a requirement for an applicant for leave to remain (whether settled or pre-settled status) to show that they have or have ever had comprehensive sickness insurance.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

The withdrawal agreement allows for certain EU nationals to be required to show they have comprehensive sickness insurance. This new clause would mean that no such requirement would be implemented.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton for his explanation of the amendments. I will take each one in turn.

Amendment 16 seeks a further debate on the issue of Windrush. It is absolutely right that we deliver on our promise to the people of the UK and legislate to end free movement. It is, further, right that in implementing a future system we must learn the lessons of Windrush. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a crucial point, and that is why, as highlighted on Second Reading, the Government have put in place a number of measures to address it. However, as I have said, we have made a commitment to end free movement and the core purpose of the Bill is to deliver on that purpose. The amendment would put conditions on its implementation, and that is unacceptable. It would have the effect of hindering the Government in that objective, which stems from the EU referendum outcome.

It is essential that the Government can implement change as soon as is practically possible following the UK’s exit from the EU. Part of that change is already in train through the EU settlement scheme. We have been clear that securing the rights of EEA citizens has always been our priority, and we have delivered on that commitment through the implementation of the scheme.

We know that some members of the Windrush generation became caught up in measures intended to tackle illegal migration, because they did not hold the documentation necessary to demonstrate that they could access the benefits and services to which they were entitled. To remedy that, a taskforce was established last April to provide support to members of the Windrush generation who needed documentation to prove their status. The taskforce has issued documentation to more than 2,400 people, who can now demonstrate their right to live in the UK. A further 610 people have subsequently been supported through the Windrush scheme application process. More than 3,400 people have successfully applied for British citizenship under the Windrush scheme.

The Home Office has taken a number of other significant steps to right the wrongs experienced by some members of the Windrush generation. Those steps include the compensation scheme, the details of which have been consulted upon; the result will be announced shortly. In addition, we have commissioned an independent lessons learned review, which has contacted a wide variety of religious and community groups for their input. The review will consider what were the key policy and operational decisions that led to members of the Windrush generation becoming entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants; what other factors played a part; why the issues were not identified sooner; what lessons the organisation can learn to ensure that it does things differently in future; whether adequate corrective measures are now in place; and an assessment of the initial impact of those measures.

We are committed to taking into account the outcome of the review in designing the future borders and immigration system. The Department is also conducting a review of historical cases, and has therefore already committed significant resources to this work.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister will be aware that the National Audit Office has been critical of the scope of the review of historical cases and has, in particular, urged the Department to widen the scope of the review to include all individuals who could be in a similar situation to those from the Caribbean—so, people of other nationalities as well. Is the Home Office willing to consider that?

[Caroline Nokes]

Obviously, the Home Office is obliged to consider the comments of the National Audit Office, and it is doing so very carefully.

In addition to the resources committed to this work, the Government are also obliged to look to end free movement as soon as is practically possible. That is the first step in establishing a future border and immigration system that works for the whole United Kingdom. Amendment 23 would amend the commencement provisions in the Bill. The amendment would make the commencement of clause 1, which ends free movement, and clause 5—the social security provision—dependent on 3 million people having applied for, and been granted, status under the EU settlement scheme.

We are committed to securing the rights of resident EU citizens, and we have delivered that through the EU settlement scheme, which will enable us to grant settled or pre-settled status to European economic area nationals and their family members in the UK before EU exit, regardless of whether or not the UK leaves the EU with a deal.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton supports the settlement scheme, and I hope that he and all other Members are encouraging EU nationals resident in their constituencies to apply. However, setting a target for the number of applications that must be reached before the Bill comes into force is not appropriate, for a number of reasons. First, we already have a generous deadline for applications to the scheme, which acts as an incentive for the resident population to apply. Using the power in clause 4, we will ensure that their status is protected before that deadline, so that their rights remain unchanged immediately after exit, avoiding any cliff edge.

Clearly, the EU and the UK commonly agreed that a deadline was the right approach when they provided for it in article 18 of the draft withdrawal agreement. We have been clear about what the deadline will be in both a deal and a no-deal scenario. According to the annual population survey, it is currently estimated that around 3 million EEA nationals are resident in the UK, but even that might well be an underestimate. It would be irresponsible to repeal free movement just because 3 million applications had been granted, which could easily happen before the proposed deadline. A date deadline is public and clearly understood. People can plan their affairs around it in a way that they cannot with an arbitrary figure such as the one proposed in the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a slightly unfair characterisation of the amendment, which does not say that we would have to end free movement when the 3 million threshold had been met. We could still wait until the deadline that the Government have imposed. The amendment simply says that the Government should not implement the end of free movement until that number of people have been registered.

[Caroline Nokes]

It is still the Home Office’s position that we regard that as an arbitrary figure. We believe that a deadline that is set as a date is much more easily understood by individuals.

We are running an extensive communications campaign to ensure that people are aware of the need to apply. We are using all available channels to reach our audience, and last year targeted online advertising alone reached more than 2 million people. Our communications activity will be even more visible in the coming months, and we will shortly launch a wide-ranging marketing campaign that will encourage EU citizens to apply when the scheme is fully open. Nobody will be left behind, however, and we are working in partnership with vulnerable group representatives to ensure that we reach everyone. We expect the large majority of EEA nationals to have been granted status by the deadline, but if a person has good reasons for missing the deadline, we will be able to protect their status and enable them to apply afterwards.

Secondly, by requiring 3 million EU citizens to be granted settled status before the Bill can come into force and lay the ground for the future immigration system, we are presupposing that all resident EU citizens will receive indefinite leave to remain, which is what settled status refers to. That does not take into account the fact that some resident EU citizens may not need to apply for settled status. Some may want to leave the UK before the deadline; some will have arrived pre-1973 and already have indefinite leave to remain; and some may want to apply for British citizenship instead.

A significant proportion of EEA nationals who are eligible to apply under the settlement scheme will not have been continuously resident in the UK for five years, so they will not be entitled to settled status. They will be issued with pre-settled status, which gives them limited leave to remain, rather than indefinite leave. Some may then leave the UK without staying to complete the five years continuous residence required for a grant of settled status.

The date on which free movement could be repealed, or retained social security co-ordination legislation amended, would therefore be highly uncertain and operationally unworkable as a result of the amendment. The decision about whether free movement ended would be left solely in the hands of those EEA nationals. To prevent free movement from coming to an end through the Bill, they could simply refuse to apply under the EU settlement scheme, knowing that, as a consequence, free movement would not end.

That would be the antithesis of taking back control. It would put the future immigration system in the hands not of the Government or the British people, but of EU nationals who had already exercised their free movement rights and whose rights were protected, but who could prevent us from ending free movement and delivering on the outcome of the referendum.

Finally, it makes no sense to restrict the commencement of the social security co-ordination provisions in clause 5 based on the number of people who are granted settled status. Rights under the social security co-ordination regulations—for example, the right to aggregate to meet domestic entitlement for specific benefits—are not connected to the grant of leave under the EU settlement scheme. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to withdraw his amendment.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

The clause is minor and technical in nature. It simply clarifies how certain terms within the Bill should be interpreted—for example, “devolved authority” and “domestic law”. In doing so, the clause helps us to ensure the clarity and coherence of the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Extent, commencement and short title.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out “Scotland”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North for tabling these amendments. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said when he started to speak that he looked forward to a sensible and civilised conversation on this matter; across the whole of this Bill Committee, I think we are not doing badly on that front and I certainly hope we can continue in that vein.

These amendments cover topics that I have discussed with the hon. Members and their colleagues on a number of occasions. I fear they might find my response to be fairly predictable, but I make no apology for that. I remain to be convinced that introducing geographical variation into the immigration system is either practical or desirable.

Amendments 34 and 35 seek to change the extent of the Bill so that it does not apply to Scotland. However, the whole of the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are leaving the EU. I believe it is our duty as a responsible Government to fully deliver on the result of the EU referendum and to end free movement. It is also important to remind the Committee that this Bill legislates for the end of free movement from the EU. It provides the legislative framework to simplify the UK immigration system by bringing EEA nationals and non-EEA nationals under one system.

Meanwhile, proposed new clause 55 would commit the Secretary of State to reviewing whether or not Scotland should have its own immigration system and its own Scottish visas, but only for EEA nationals. I am not sure how such a proposal, limited to EEA nationals, would be justified on equality grounds. Such a review would not be the first time that the question of whether or not Scotland should have more independence from the UK has been considered, including decisively in a referendum in 2014. With particular reference to immigration, we are not reopening the work of the Smith commission. Immigration needs to be a reserved matter.

I remind the Committee that, in designing the new system, we commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to consider the best immigration policies for the UK. MAC undertook a comprehensive engagement and evidence-gathering exercise across the whole of the country over a 12-month period and produced an authoritative report that gives the Government a clear direction of travel for the UK’s future skills-based immigration system.

As part of that exercise, MAC considered whether there was an economic need for regional differentiation in the immigration system, and not for the first time concluded that there was no case for it. To quote from its final report:

“Overall, we were not of the view that Scotland's economic situation is sufficiently different from that of the rest of the UK to justify a very different migration policy.”

MAC went on to note that Scotland already has a separate shortage occupation list. The Committee will note that the composition of that list, as well as the UK-wide one—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am always perplexed by the facing-two-ways approach that the Government sometimes take on this. On the one hand, they say that they are totally against any sort of differentiation, and then on the other they flag up the shortage occupation list. If there is no economic justification for the shortage occupation list, is it the Conservative position that it should be abolished?

[Caroline Nokes]

I do not accept for one moment that we look both ways. Evidence from MAC suggests that there should not be a separate system, but that our policies should be able to reflect the different shortages in different parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked MAC to consider whether there should also be a different needs list for Northern Ireland, and we are consulting on that for Wales as well. There would be formidable problems with trying to implement a system that could in effect tie a worker to a specific geographical area. Business no longer happens in a single postcode.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The key visa for workers in this country is the tier 2 visa, which requires someone to work for a particular employer in a particular place. A Scottish visa would not need to be any different. Why would it be incredibly difficult to do that in Scotland when it happens day in, day out all across the United Kingdom?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I do not accept that that is what happens at the moment. The tier 2 visa ties somebody to a specific employer. It does not determine that they can work only in a single location. I am conscious that he said that a separate system operating in Scotland would be no different from the current situation that we have with the soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that he, like me, wishes to see that situation continue, with a border that is straightforward and simple. However, he knows, from our current discussions regarding our withdrawal from the European Union, that it is proving to be far from simple to come to a solution to the matter that works for us all.

We have already undertaken engagement in all parts of the UK and will continue to do so; all sectors, nations and regions will be part of our planned 12-month engagement. However, our arguments against a regional immigration policy remain strong, for reasons of both principle and practicality. I therefore ask the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North to withdraw their amendments.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am hugely disappointed by the response from both Front-Bench spokespeople, and their degree of engagement on this will be a disappointment to their party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. There has been no recognition or engagement with the challenges that Scotland faces. This issue is absolutely pivotal to our economy, tax base and public finances, and their not even recognising that as a problem, never mind offering a single solution, is hugely frustrating.

I recognise that the MAC report was not exactly wonderful for my argument, but it did not say that there should not be a differentiated policy for Scotland; it said that that would be a political decision. I acknowledge that other parts of the United Kingdom also have economic challenges, but my answer to that is to explore options to help them. I pointed to the Tech Nation visa, which has slightly different rules for one or two cities in England, so it is not as if the UK Government do not differentiate for certain parts of England.

The difference is that Scotland already has institutions that could help to operate such a policy, such as a Government and a Parliament, none of which exist in England. I will be happy to table amendments on Report that include Northern Ireland and Wales, if Members wish.

As the Minister said, the Smith commission looked at the issue, but that was long before there were any proposals to end free movement and implement the drastic new system, which has pretty much united Scotland’s businesses, trade unions and third sector organisations in opposition. She must be aware that if she does not think again about the proposals, the already increasing demand for some sort of differentiation will only grow. We have not even started to look at how things work in Canada, Australia or other places, but this does not need to be difficult; it could be simply a small additional means for Scotland to support its population and its economy.

I repeat that I am hugely frustrated by the response that we have been given this morning. I hope that we can get something better on Report, but in the meantime, there is no point in my dividing the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am pleased to be back on the same side as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton; I need not say much more than he did. The amendments would address the problems that will arise in a no-deal situation if the Government introduce their proposals. For example, how will employers and landlords go about distinguishing those who arrive before and after Brexit day? The Minister reassures us that employers need make no checks on prospective employees except whether they are EEA nationals, but the problem is that they will want to know how long those people can work for them; will they be entitled to stay in the UK for three years, or will they end up being entitled to settled status? Likewise, landlords will want to know how long tenancies can last.

Some EU nationals may have the right to be in the UK indefinitely through the settled status scheme, while others may be restricted to three years. This is not the Minister’s fault, but there is no indication how the three-year visa will feed into the future immigration system. There is a huge danger that there will be discrimination, and that the system just will not work. The very simple answer in amendment 36, proposed by the3million, is not to end free movement, either in a deal or no-deal situation, until after the settled status scheme has run its course. Only then can we be absolutely sure that different categories of EEA nationals can be distinguished.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling amendments to clause 7, which sets out how and when the provisions of the Bill will commence. Let me briefly outline how the clause operates.

Like clause 6, which deals with interpretation, clause 7 will come into force on the day that the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is common for such provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is acceptable if there is a deal, so I do not understand why it is completely unacceptable if there is no deal.

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government are working hard to secure a deal, but there will need to be a reasonable transition period in the event of deal or no deal. Indeed, in no deal we will have to have an element of control and transition, and there will be no case where we shall be able to implement a new system and switch off the old system overnight. Transition is important, and it is important that we retain the tools that enable us to do that.

We have been clear that we aim for the future skills-based immigration system to be in place from January 2021. This amendment would prevent us from doing that, as it would effectively extend the implementation period for a further six months. That would leave us unable to deliver on our commitments to end free movement and to introduce the new system on time. We received a clear message in the referendum that free movement should end. Delaying it further beyond the agreed implementation period would clearly be ignoring that message.

Even in a no-deal scenario, there will need to be a transition period before the future skills-based immigration system begins. That period should reassure Members that there will be no cliff-edge. The Government announced their proposals for ending free movement in a no-deal scenario in the policy paper published on 28 January 2019. This Bill, not least the measures in part 1, is needed now to enable us to deliver the result of the referendum.

We have also been clear that we will ensure the immigration status of the resident population is protected before the deadline for the EU settlement scheme, through appropriate savings made under clause 4. That will ensure that their rights remain unchanged immediately after exit, avoiding any cliff-edge. That means it is not necessary to delay the repeal of the free movement law in the way proposed to protect the resident population.

By delaying the end of free movement in a no-deal scenario, the amendment creates a group of EU nationals who arrive under free movement, after EU exit but before the end of the implementation period, who will face uncertainty in June 2021, when those free-movement rights end. They are not eligible to apply under the EU settlement scheme and would be in the UK unlawfully, unless they obtain leave under the immigration rules. The Government’s planned transition of a dedicated EU leave to remain route, to bridge the transition from the end of free movement to the introduction of the future system, is both pragmatic and fair, and avoids the cliff-edge I have described. I believe it is preferable to amendment 36, which seeks to prolong free movement unilaterally.

Amendments 14 and 15 seek to prevent the Bill, once enacted, from coming into force until after a motion in a specific form is passed by the House of Commons. While I recognise the importance of facilitating extensive debate on this Bill, I am of the view that legislating for a further motion after enactment is neither an effective nor appropriate use of parliamentary time. There is ample opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to have their views heard and to subject the Bill to scrutiny as it progresses through Parliament. We have already heard valuable and thought-provoking views from both sides of the Committee, and Members will continue to debate and vote on the Bill on Report and Third Reading, before it passes to the other place for further scrutiny.

Furthermore, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, Parliament will clearly have made the decision that it should become law and that free movement should end. The Government have been clear, both publicly and in the House, when they plan to commence the provisions in the Bill. There is no good reason to continue free movement unilaterally in a no-deal scenario, and these amendments, which seek to do so, seek to deny the result of the referendum. That is not acceptable. I therefore ask the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw their amendments.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

One of our problems is that many asylum claims take longer than six months to assess. The Minister just cited unfounded claims as a problem. Surely there must be a process by which we can establish whether a claim is completely unfounded in a much shorter timeframe than six months.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was not entirely unexpected. He knows that we are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay, so that people who need protection can be granted it as soon as possible in order for them to integrate and rebuild their lives.

Until recently, our aim was to decide 98% of straightforward asylum claims within six months from the date of the claim. However, many asylum claims are not straightforward, which means that it has not always been possible to make an initial decision within six months. Many of these cases had a barrier that needed to be overcome in order to make the asylum decision, and many of those barriers were outside the Home Office’s control.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber yesterday when I said that I regard the situation as not good enough. I know that we have to do more in this area, and one of our key priorities is to speed up the process. I would still like to make several comments about the rights of asylum seekers to work; if the Committee will indulge me, I will expand a little on some of my thoughts in a moment.

I am conscious that we cannot simply dismiss the risk that removing restrictions on work might increase the number of unfounded claims, which would reduce our capacity to take decisions and support genuine refugees. However, we recognise the importance of getting both the policy and the process right, which is why the Home Secretary has already committed to a review of the policy on asylum seekers’ right to work. Officials are already undertaking that review, looking at available evidence and anticipating the economic impact that such changes might bring about.

Hon. Members are right to point out that this matter has been raised frequently in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall. I remember that in October many hon. Members here today contributed to a debate led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). I later responded before the Select Committee on Home Affairs to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), when he spoke of a report he had contributed to several years ago on the rights of asylum seekers to work.

The issue was raised extensively on Second Reading and yesterday it cropped up again in Home Office oral questions. I had forgotten, until the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned it, that I sat on the Bench last week for the First Reading of the Asylum Seekers (Permission to Work) (No. 2) Bill, the ten-minute rule Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, who spoke passionately about this issue and made a number of the points that we have heard again today.

Over the course of the past 12 months I have made a significant effort to engage on the issue, not only with non-governmental organisations and charities involved in the sector, but with hon. Members in this place. I appreciate the thought and time that have gone into those conversations, not least with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her good friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who made a fleeting visit to the Committee this morning. I think she was a little optimistic if she thought we would get to this amendment before lunch. She has always made a powerful case on this subject.

As Immigration Minister, I am conscious that one should not conflate asylum seekers with refugees. I fear that in my next comments I am about to do just that, for which I apologise. I have spent a great deal of time on visits over the course of the past year, and I will give some edited highlights. One of my first ministerial visits was to Bradford, where I met members of World Jewish Relief Aid who were working closely with resettled refugees who had come here as part of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. That is where the conflation is coming in. They were making efforts to enable those with refugee status to improve their English and CVs and work through the process of moving into employment. It was a humbling experience and fascinating to have the opportunity to talk to the refugees about the importance to them of work. Hon. Members will have heard me say previously—

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton for giving us the opportunity to consider two important issues: the protection of migrant workers and the opportunities that are open to them. Amendment 20 concerns the protection of workers’ rights. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, and I do not believe there is any real difference between the hon. Gentleman and me on this issue. It is of the highest importance that everyone working in our economy is safe, and is treated fairly and with respect. I am proud of the Government’s track record in this area, with the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the further powers we have given to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. We will not be complacent on the matter.

Let me be very clear that migrant workers in the UK are entitled to all the protections of UK law while they are here, whether that is the minimum wage, health and safety legislation, working conditions, maternity and paternity arrangements, the right to join a trade union, the right to strike, statutory rights to holiday pay and sick pay or any of the other myriad protections in UK law for workers. Those protections apply to those who are in the UK on work visas every bit as much as they do to the resident workforce. That is true of migrant workers who are here under the current immigration system and those who may come in future under the new one.

In the future system, those who come under the skilled worker route will be taking up professional occupations and will be sponsored by their employer, so the Home Office will have a relationship with their employer. The Home Office may well visit and inspect the employer, and the Government will take very seriously any suggestion that the worker is not benefiting from every employment right to which they are entitled. Migrant workers who come to the UK under the temporary worker route may be doing jobs that are more vulnerable to exploitation. That is why a feature of that route is that migrant workers are not tied to one employer and may move around the labour market if they are unhappy, for whatever reason, in their employment. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the temporary worker route will be open to nationals from countries that pose a low immigration risk. We do not expect that route to be used by those who may, unfortunately, be economically desperate enough to make themselves vulnerable to exploitation.

As we have heard, there is one sector in which we will operate a special scheme under which workers will, to some extent, be tied to a particular type of work, and that is the agricultural sector. The independent Migration Advisory Committee recognised the sector’s unique reliance on short-term migrant labour, and the Government have accepted that argument. We are currently catering for that through a seasonal worker pilot, which comes into operation shortly. I will say a bit more about that when I address new clause 20, but let me deal first with the protection issues.

The potential for exploitation of the pilot was the recent subject of a thoughtful and considered debate in Westminster Hall, secured by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). In that debate, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—he responded to the debate because I was in this Committee taking evidence—set out the careful work that had gone into the design of the pilot scheme, and the ongoing liaison with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to ensure that migrant workers are protected. I suspect members of this Committee were present in this Committee rather than in that debate, and I urge them to review the principles of the pilot and the protections that will be applied, as set out by my ministerial colleague.

On the requirement in amendment 20 to consult trade unions, I appreciate that trade unions have a unique perspective on work-related immigration, and they will understandably want to protect the rights of their existing members in the domestic workforce. As part of our ongoing engagement following the publication of the immigration White Paper, we are consulting some trade unions about the proposed future system. However, I do not see how the amendment could practically be made to work. As I have explained, we do not propose to introduce sectoral working visas other than in agriculture, and MAC specifically advised against doing so. Our proposed work routes—the skilled worker route and the temporary worker route—are, in combination, open to the full range of occupations and professions. That means that the Government would be committed to consulting hundreds of trade unions and representative bodies every time a change was required to the immigration rules, and that would be unworkable.

The second half of amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on workers’ rights for any future work-related immigration arrangements, and I do not believe that that is necessary. As I have said, migrant workers who come to the UK will be subject to the full protections that already exist for every worker—regardless of their nationality—who is employed by a UK employer. Since the statutory workplace employment rights and protections will be the same for domestic and migrant workers, it is unlikely that an impact assessment would be necessary or add to the understanding of the future immigration system.

I turn to new clause 20. Although I appreciate what the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton seeks to achieve, I believe that, once again, he and the Government are in the same place and the new clause is not necessary. The Government fully understand the importance of our food and farming industry, and the sector’s significant reliance on seasonal labour. We appreciate that farming is a long-term endeavour and that the sector places great emphasis on certainty when it comes to workforce planning. That is particularly the case as we look to the design of our future immigration system. As I set out earlier, the temporary worker route will be open to nationals from countries that pose a low immigration risk. That route will support seasonal employment of all kinds across all sectors, including our farmers and growers. The route will offer considerably more generous terms than the proposals in the new clause; that includes not tying migrants to a specific employer.

We intend to go further, however. As the Committee will be aware, the Migration Advisory Committee identified agriculture as a special case, and as the only sector that is deserving of special treatment. The Government have accepted that advice.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister has made the point a couple of times that the Government will not expect people to be tied to a particular employer. I welcome that, because tying people to employers gives rise to the risk of exploitation. However, other problems have arisen because of very short visas. If, for example, domestic workers get about halfway through their visa and have only four, five or six months left, there is no chance that anyone else will take them on because they are so close to the end of their visa. Is that not something we need to learn from? Should we not, generally speaking, look to have visas with a term longer than just one year?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the temporary work visas are a transitional measure, but we will be looking carefully at that and listening to the advice that we have received in the evidence sessions for this Committee and more widely. As the Immigration Minister, I am conscious that people from a huge range of sectors are beating a path to my door to outline the particular circumstances of their industries, and I fully expect that to continue over the next 12 months. I do not expect people to beat a path to my door, however, so we are going out and engaging actively with different sectors. We are holding roundtables in every part of the country, and across every part of industry, so that we have a top-range understanding of the challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

We did hear evidence in which people expressed concerns about the temporary routes, but we also heard from the agricultural sector, which was keen that there should be some. I vividly remember some evidence that indicated that temporary routes would inevitably—that was the word used—lead to exploitation. In the rebuttal from the National Farmers Union, however, we were given much evidence about workers on temporary contracts who returned year after year. That suggests that short-term routes would not inevitably lead to exploitation.

That remains something for us to consider carefully by listening to the evidence and the discussions that we have in the next 12 months, so that we understand the sectors—particularly the agricultural sector—that are engaging with us. I highlight again the fact that we are in the final stages of establishing the relevant pilot scheme.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Two other points that relate to the one-year visa proposed in the White Paper are: not allowing family to join the worker in the United Kingdom; and not allowing any recourse to public funds, including, for example, tax credits. Surely that is unfair? In fact, why would anyone want to come if those were the conditions for incoming people?

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have said, this is a transitional route that we will review carefully, but there are very good reasons why we do not propose that dependants should be able to come for such a short period. Of course, “no recourse to public funds” is about encouraging people who come here for work to not be reliant on the benefits system, which they will not have paid into for any significant period. We will have an immigration route for high-skilled and medium-skilled workers of all nationalities, and we will have a transitional route for workers at all skill levels. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton feels able to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I had intended to add my name to the amendment, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. We fully support it. Our view is that ending free movement while keeping the immigration system for non-EEA nationals broadly the same poses a huge challenge and, indeed, a danger to this particular sector. We very much support the amendment, which comes from 16 leading organisations.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe for providing the Committee with the opportunity to discuss the amendment, and for his really important work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer.

The amendment gives us the opportunity to consider the impact that ending free movement through the Bill might have on the health and social care and medical research sectors. I appreciate that there are those on the Committee who do not believe that we should end free movement. I have to remind them that the people of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum, in which there was no doubt that immigration was a key consideration for some members of the electorate. Parliament has to respect that democratic mandate.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and that of your co-Chair, Sir David Amess, who took us so ably through the evidence sessions the week before last.

At the outset, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Bill in delivering the future border and immigration system. It was clear from the EU referendum, from the many views shared on Second Reading and from the Committee’s evidence sessions that people want a fair immigration system that works for the whole United Kingdom—a system that attracts talent from around the globe and allows individuals to access the UK based on what they have to offer, not where they come from.

We heard many important views about the current and future border and immigration systems from witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee two weeks ago, as well as from organisations that provided written evidence. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to provide their opinions. The views that were put forward demonstrated a strong interest in a wide range of immigration issues, as well as in the specific design of the future system. The evidence highlighted the importance of learning lessons from the past and ensuring we get things right.

A clear message emerged about the need to create a fair and simple system, and those are key priorities for me in the design of the future system. As I have said previously, I recognise that the immigration rules need to be made simpler. That is why we have asked the Law Commission to review how the rules could be simplified. I look forward to considering its findings when they are published.

Leaving the European Union means that, for the first time in more than 40 years, we can deliver control of immigration by ending free movement. In its place, we will introduce a new system, which will level the playing field by ending preferential treatment for EU citizens. It will mean that everyone has the same opportunity to come to the UK, regardless of where they are from.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. She has asserted a couple of times that the new system will provide a level playing field for everybody, but the White Paper indicates that nationals of different countries will be treated in different ways. There will, I reckon, be preferential treatment for EU nationals with the one-year visa and for countries whose citizens are already non-visa nationals. Will she clarify that? Is she saying everybody is going to be treated exactly the same, or does she accept that the White Paper in fact does not set out such an arrangement?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Bill certainly does set out that people will be treated in the same way, because it is a Bill simply to end free movement. The White Paper, which was published on 18 December, gives us the opportunity to discuss the future system and how people from across the globe may be treated. It gives us the opportunity to discuss whether trade deals might include treatment within our immigration system. It is important that we have a system that reflects people’s skills and what we need in our economy. This Bill, through which we are seeking to end free movement, is an opportunity to start to provide that level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If we have learned one thing from Windrush—and I sincerely hope we have learned many—it is that a declaratory system that does not give people the evidence they need to be able to affirm their right to be in the UK, to work and own property, does not work. That is why we have a scheme that I am confident will give people the evidence they need so that we can avoid a position whereby EU citizens who are here and settled are in the same situation in the future. I am conscious—Members may have heard me say this in Select Committees—that there will be children of EU citizens living in this country today who are well under the age of 16; some will be one or two years old. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned an ageing population and longevity, but while we in this room might be lucky to get to our late 80s, there are children who will live to 100 or 110. It is therefore important we have something that is enduring and enables them to evidence their right to be here for a century or more.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

A new argument appeared for the first time yesterday at Home Office questions, saying the problem was caused because Windrush was what Ministers describe as a declaratory system. That was not what caused the problem; the problem was the lack of evidence. In fact, if people did not have rights under statute—as we would like to see here—they could have been removed ages ago and could not have rectified the situation. It is not right to say that a declaratory system caused the problem to the Windrush generation.

[Caroline Nokes]

I disagree. If we look back to the Immigration Act 1971—I have become quite familiar with that Act over the past year in this job—it put the right of the people of the Windrush generation to be here in statute, but it did not provide them with the evidence they needed to demonstrate that. It is important we learn that lesson and make sure we do not repeat the mistake for our EU citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank hon. Members for raising important issues linked to Irish citizens. It is important to recognise that British and Irish citizens have enjoyed a particular status and specific rights in each other’s countries since the 1920s as part of the common travel area arrangements.

Clause 2 will protect the status of Irish citizens. When free movement ends, it will allow them to continue to come to the UK without requiring permission and without any restrictions on how long they can stay. British citizens enjoy reciprocal rights in Ireland. The clause will provide legal certainty and clarity for Irish citizens by inserting new section 3ZA into the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that they can enter and remain in the UK without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from. That is already the position for those who enter the UK from within the common travel area, but Irish citizens who travel to the UK from outside the CTA currently enter under European economic area regulations. The clause will remove that distinction by giving Irish citizens a clear status.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Amendment 29 would establish in legislation that the immigration rules cannot treat family members of Irish citizens differently from family members of British citizens. The common travel area arrangements have never included rights for the family members of British and Irish citizens. That is an approach that we intend to maintain, but the unique status of Irish citizens means that they are considered settled from the day on which they arrive in the United Kingdom. Irish citizens in the UK can therefore sponsor family members, in the same way as British citizens can. That is the position for those of all nationalities within the UK who are settled.

I also note that Irish citizens, in line with other EU nationals, can be joined in the UK by family members under the terms of the EU settlement scheme, but the amendment would prevent that. To be clear, Irish citizens are not required to apply for status under the EU settlement scheme to benefit from the family member rights, but they may apply if they wish. Under the settlement scheme in a deal scenario, close family members who are not already resident in the UK will be able to join an EU citizen—that includes Irish citizens—under the same conditions as now, where the relationship pre-existed the end of the implementation period. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to consider withdrawing his amendment for the reasons that I have outlined.

Amendment 28 would introduce additional provisions regarding the deportation and exclusion of Irish citizens and their family members. I will use this opportunity to reiterate our approach to deporting Irish citizens in light of the historical community and political ties between the UK and Ireland, along with the existence of the common travel area. Irish citizens are considered for deportation only if a court has recommended deportation following conviction or if the Secretary of State concludes that, because of the exceptional circumstances of a case, the public interest requires deportation. We carefully assess all deportation decisions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the facts of the case.

In response to questions asked on Second Reading, I confirmed that the Government are fully committed to maintaining this approach. In that regard, Committee members will have noted that we are making provision to ensure that once we leave the EU, Irish citizens will be exempt from the automatic deportation provisions for criminality in the UK Borders Act 2007. That exemption is contained in the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before the House on 11 February. Therefore, proposed new subsections (6) and (8) are not needed.

As I have outlined, the UK’s approach is to deport Irish citizens only in exceptional circumstances or where the court has recommended it, which means that a family member of an Irish citizen would not be considered for deportation unless a deportation order was made in respect of that citizen in line with our approach. I also emphasise that the common travel area rights have always provided solely for British and Irish citizens. They have never specifically extended to the family members of British or Irish citizens, and we intend to maintain that approach.

With proposed new subsection (8) in mind, I must make it absolutely clear that the UK is fully committed to upholding the Belfast agreement and respects the right of the people of Northern Ireland to identify as Irish, British or both, and to hold both British and Irish citizenship as they choose. I recognise the centrality of those citizenship and identity provisions to the Belfast agreement. As I have said, deportation decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, and we consider the seriousness of the criminality and whether it is in the public interest to require deportation.

Recognising the citizenship provisions in the Belfast agreement, we would consider any case extremely carefully and not seek to deport a person from Northern Ireland who is solely an Irish citizen. However, I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter and will continue to keep it under consideration. I therefore respectfully ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment for the reasons outlined.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response. As I have accepted, amendment 29 is not perfect. I also accept her general reassurances about the treatment of Irish citizens’ families in the United Kingdom, so I will withdraw the amendment and reflect further on our position.

In relation to what the Minister said about deportations and amendment 28, it seems to me that we are mostly saying the same things, but our statements are reflected better in my amendment than in the clause. We seem to be saying the same thing, but reaching different conclusions about how to enshrine it in law. I am simply asking the Government to put their current practice into statute. I will give further thought to that, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 29.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State may not conclude that the deportation of an Irish citizen is conducive to the public good under section 3(5)(a) unless he concludes that a higher threshold is reached whereby deportation is in the public interest because there are exceptional circumstances.

(7) No person of any nationality is liable for deportation under section 3(5)(b) where he belongs to the family of an Irish citizen who is or has been ordered to be deported, unless subsection (6) is satisfied in respect of that Irish citizen.

(8) No Irish citizen is liable for deportation under section 3(6) where recommended for deportation by a court empowered under this Act to do so unless, thereafter, the Secretary concludes that his deportation is conducive to the public good in accordance with subsection (6).

(9) An Irish citizen may not be deported or excluded from the United Kingdom if they are among the ‘people of Northern Ireland’ entitled to identify as Irish citizens by virtue of Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish Agreement of 1998.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This amendment would provide additional safeguards against deportation for Irish citizens.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As I said in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the clause will protect the status of Irish citizens in the UK when free movement ends. Without the clause, as Professor Ryan explained in evidence to the Committee, when freedom of movement ends, Irish citizens will need to seek permission to enter the UK when they arrive from outside the common travel area. I am sure all members of the Committee agree that that would be wholly unacceptable.

In addition to the evidence from Professor Ryan, I also welcome the written evidence from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, which notes that the clause is

“designed to remedy the gap for Irish citizens being able to enter and reside in the UK from outside the CTA”.

Dr de Mars, Mr Murray, Professor O’Donoghue and Dr Warwick highlight that the clause will help to clarify and simplify travel rights under the common travel area.

The Government are clear that, as now, Irish citizens should not be subject to immigration control unless they are subject to a deportation or exclusion order, or to an international travel ban. Those exceptions are set out in the Bill, and they reflect current and long-standing practice. I confirm that our approach is to deport Irish citizens only if there are exceptional circumstances, or if a court has recommended deportation in a criminal case.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This is the crux of the matter—the Minister is confirming an approach that appears to be different from the one set out in the clause. Why not just include the Government’s approach to this issue in the Bill?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he just lost a Division on that matter, but I am sure we will return to it on Report. He may consider his drafting to be better than that of my Home Office officials, but I must take a contrary view. I confirmed the Government’s approach in response to questions raised on Second Reading, and, as members of the Committee will have noted, once we leave the EU, Irish citizens will be exempt from the automatic deportation provisions for criminality in the UK Borders Act 2007.

The clause amends section 9 of the Immigration Act 1971 so that restrictions placed on those who enter the UK from the CTA by order under that section will not apply to Irish citizens. It also amends schedule 4 to that Act, which deals with the integration of UK law and the immigration law of the islands—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The schedule provides broadly that leave granted or refused in the islands has the same effect as leave granted or refused in the UK. The clause disapplies those provisions in relation to Irish citizens who do not require such leave under the Bill. They also make it lawful for an Irish citizen—unless they are subject to a deportation or exclusion order—to enter the UK from the islands, regardless of their status in them.

The clause aims to support the wider reciprocal rights enjoyed by British and Irish citizens in the other state. Citizens will continue to work, study, access healthcare and social security benefits, and vote in certain elections when they are in the other state. I reiterate that once free movement ends, Irish citizens in the UK will be able to bring family members to the UK on the same basis as British citizens, because they are considered to be settled from day one of their arrival in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

Clause 3 is minor and technical in nature, but it is important for the implementation of the Bill and to ensure that we have a fully functioning statute book. Subsection (1) ensures that the Bill, when enacted, will be covered by any reference to “the Immigration Acts”, which are the Acts of Parliament that govern the UK’s immigration system. They enable, for example, grants of leave to enter and remain, and the deportation of individuals.

References to the Immigration Acts can be found across the statute book. For example, section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires that functions conferred by virtue of the Immigration Acts are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. Clause 3 will ensure that functions conferred by regulations under the Bill must be discharged according to that duty in relation to the best interests of children. Such a provision is standard for an immigration Bill, and clauses that have the same purpose and effect are included in previous Immigration Acts. For example, section 73 of the Immigration Act 2014 and section 92 of the Immigration Act 2016 both provide that those Acts are included in the definition of Immigration Acts.

Subsection (2) clarifies that the Bill is not retained EU law. That means that it is not part of the body of law that will have been saved in UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is important to make it clear that the Bill cannot be treated as retained EU law. For example, it cannot be amended by the deficiencies power under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act or any other powers to deal with retained EU law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Consequential etc provision

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State may only make regulations which are necessary rather than those which the Minister considers appropriate.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and that of your co-Chair, Sir David Amess, who took us so ably through the evidence sessions the week before last.

At the outset, I would like to emphasise the importance of the Bill in delivering the future border and immigration system. It was clear from the EU referendum, from the many views shared on Second Reading and from the Committee’s evidence sessions that people want a fair immigration system that works for the whole United Kingdom—a system that attracts talent from around the globe and allows individuals to access the UK based on what they have to offer, not where they come from.

We heard many important views about the current and future border and immigration systems from witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee two weeks ago, as well as from organisations that provided written evidence. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to provide their opinions. The views that were put forward demonstrated a strong interest in a wide range of immigration issues, as well as in the specific design of the future system. The evidence highlighted the importance of learning lessons from the past and ensuring we get things right.

A clear message emerged about the need to create a fair and simple system, and those are key priorities for me in the design of the future system. As I have said previously, I recognise that the immigration rules need to be made simpler. That is why we have asked the Law Commission to review how the rules could be simplified. I look forward to considering its findings when they are published.

Leaving the European Union means that, for the first time in more than 40 years, we can deliver control of immigration by ending free movement. In its place, we will introduce a new system, which will level the playing field by ending preferential treatment for EU citizens. It will mean that everyone has the same opportunity to come to the UK, regardless of where they are from.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. She has asserted a couple of times that the new system will provide a level playing field for everybody, but the White Paper indicates that nationals of different countries will be treated in different ways. There will, I reckon, be preferential treatment for EU nationals with the one-year visa and for countries whose citizens are already non-visa nationals. Will she clarify that? Is she saying everybody is going to be treated exactly the same, or does she accept that the White Paper in fact does not set out such an arrangement?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Bill certainly does set out that people will be treated in the same way, because it is a Bill simply to end free movement. The White Paper, which was published on 18 December, gives us the opportunity to discuss the future system and how people from across the globe may be treated. It gives us the opportunity to discuss whether trade deals might include treatment within our immigration system. It is important that we have a system that reflects people’s skills and what we need in our economy. This Bill, through which we are seeking to end free movement, is an opportunity to start to provide that level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If we have learned one thing from Windrush—and I sincerely hope we have learned many—it is that a declaratory system that does not give people the evidence they need to be able to affirm their right to be in the UK, to work and own property, does not work. That is why we have a scheme that I am confident will give people the evidence they need so that we can avoid a position whereby EU citizens who are here and settled are in the same situation in the future. I am conscious—Members may have heard me say this in Select Committees—that there will be children of EU citizens living in this country today who are well under the age of 16; some will be one or two years old. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned an ageing population and longevity, but while we in this room might be lucky to get to our late 80s, there are children who will live to 100 or 110. It is therefore important we have something that is enduring and enables them to evidence their right to be here for a century or more.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

A new argument appeared for the first time yesterday at Home Office questions, saying the problem was caused because Windrush was what Ministers describe as a declaratory system. That was not what caused the problem; the problem was the lack of evidence. In fact, if people did not have rights under statute—as we would like to see here—they could have been removed ages ago and could not have rectified the situation. It is not right to say that a declaratory system caused the problem to the Windrush generation.

[Caroline Nokes]

I disagree. If we look back to the Immigration Act 1971—I have become quite familiar with that Act over the past year in this job—it put the right of the people of the Windrush generation to be here in statute, but it did not provide them with the evidence they needed to demonstrate that. It is important we learn that lesson and make sure we do not repeat the mistake for our EU citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank hon. Members for raising important issues linked to Irish citizens. It is important to recognise that British and Irish citizens have enjoyed a particular status and specific rights in each other’s countries since the 1920s as part of the common travel area arrangements.

Clause 2 will protect the status of Irish citizens. When free movement ends, it will allow them to continue to come to the UK without requiring permission and without any restrictions on how long they can stay. British citizens enjoy reciprocal rights in Ireland. The clause will provide legal certainty and clarity for Irish citizens by inserting new section 3ZA into the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that they can enter and remain in the UK without requiring permission, regardless of where they have travelled from. That is already the position for those who enter the UK from within the common travel area, but Irish citizens who travel to the UK from outside the CTA currently enter under European economic area regulations. The clause will remove that distinction by giving Irish citizens a clear status.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Amendment 29 would establish in legislation that the immigration rules cannot treat family members of Irish citizens differently from family members of British citizens. The common travel area arrangements have never included rights for the family members of British and Irish citizens. That is an approach that we intend to maintain, but the unique status of Irish citizens means that they are considered settled from the day on which they arrive in the United Kingdom. Irish citizens in the UK can therefore sponsor family members, in the same way as British citizens can. That is the position for those of all nationalities within the UK who are settled.

I also note that Irish citizens, in line with other EU nationals, can be joined in the UK by family members under the terms of the EU settlement scheme, but the amendment would prevent that. To be clear, Irish citizens are not required to apply for status under the EU settlement scheme to benefit from the family member rights, but they may apply if they wish. Under the settlement scheme in a deal scenario, close family members who are not already resident in the UK will be able to join an EU citizen—that includes Irish citizens—under the same conditions as now, where the relationship pre-existed the end of the implementation period. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to consider withdrawing his amendment for the reasons that I have outlined.

Amendment 28 would introduce additional provisions regarding the deportation and exclusion of Irish citizens and their family members. I will use this opportunity to reiterate our approach to deporting Irish citizens in light of the historical community and political ties between the UK and Ireland, along with the existence of the common travel area. Irish citizens are considered for deportation only if a court has recommended deportation following conviction or if the Secretary of State concludes that, because of the exceptional circumstances of a case, the public interest requires deportation. We carefully assess all deportation decisions on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the facts of the case.

In response to questions asked on Second Reading, I confirmed that the Government are fully committed to maintaining this approach. In that regard, Committee members will have noted that we are making provision to ensure that once we leave the EU, Irish citizens will be exempt from the automatic deportation provisions for criminality in the UK Borders Act 2007. That exemption is contained in the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before the House on 11 February. Therefore, proposed new subsections (6) and (8) are not needed.

As I have outlined, the UK’s approach is to deport Irish citizens only in exceptional circumstances or where the court has recommended it, which means that a family member of an Irish citizen would not be considered for deportation unless a deportation order was made in respect of that citizen in line with our approach. I also emphasise that the common travel area rights have always provided solely for British and Irish citizens. They have never specifically extended to the family members of British or Irish citizens, and we intend to maintain that approach.

With proposed new subsection (8) in mind, I must make it absolutely clear that the UK is fully committed to upholding the Belfast agreement and respects the right of the people of Northern Ireland to identify as Irish, British or both, and to hold both British and Irish citizenship as they choose. I recognise the centrality of those citizenship and identity provisions to the Belfast agreement. As I have said, deportation decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, and we consider the seriousness of the criminality and whether it is in the public interest to require deportation.

Recognising the citizenship provisions in the Belfast agreement, we would consider any case extremely carefully and not seek to deport a person from Northern Ireland who is solely an Irish citizen. However, I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter and will continue to keep it under consideration. I therefore respectfully ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment for the reasons outlined.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response. As I have accepted, amendment 29 is not perfect. I also accept her general reassurances about the treatment of Irish citizens’ families in the United Kingdom, so I will withdraw the amendment and reflect further on our position.

In relation to what the Minister said about deportations and amendment 28, it seems to me that we are mostly saying the same things, but our statements are reflected better in my amendment than in the clause. We seem to be saying the same thing, but reaching different conclusions about how to enshrine it in law. I am simply asking the Government to put their current practice into statute. I will give further thought to that, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 29.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 28, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(6) The Secretary of State may not conclude that the deportation of an Irish citizen is conducive to the public good under section 3(5)(a) unless he concludes that a higher threshold is reached whereby deportation is in the public interest because there are exceptional circumstances.

(7) No person of any nationality is liable for deportation under section 3(5)(b) where he belongs to the family of an Irish citizen who is or has been ordered to be deported, unless subsection (6) is satisfied in respect of that Irish citizen.

(8) No Irish citizen is liable for deportation under section 3(6) where recommended for deportation by a court empowered under this Act to do so unless, thereafter, the Secretary concludes that his deportation is conducive to the public good in accordance with subsection (6).

(9) An Irish citizen may not be deported or excluded from the United Kingdom if they are among the ‘people of Northern Ireland’ entitled to identify as Irish citizens by virtue of Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish Agreement of 1998.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

This amendment would provide additional safeguards against deportation for Irish citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As I said in response to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the clause will protect the status of Irish citizens in the UK when free movement ends. Without the clause, as Professor Ryan explained in evidence to the Committee, when freedom of movement ends, Irish citizens will need to seek permission to enter the UK when they arrive from outside the common travel area. I am sure all members of the Committee agree that that would be wholly unacceptable.

In addition to the evidence from Professor Ryan, I also welcome the written evidence from the Committee on the Administration of Justice, which notes that the clause is

“designed to remedy the gap for Irish citizens being able to enter and reside in the UK from outside the CTA”.

Dr de Mars, Mr Murray, Professor O’Donoghue and Dr Warwick highlight that the clause will help to clarify and simplify travel rights under the common travel area.

The Government are clear that, as now, Irish citizens should not be subject to immigration control unless they are subject to a deportation or exclusion order, or to an international travel ban. Those exceptions are set out in the Bill, and they reflect current and long-standing practice. I confirm that our approach is to deport Irish citizens only if there are exceptional circumstances, or if a court has recommended deportation in a criminal case.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This is the crux of the matter—the Minister is confirming an approach that appears to be different from the one set out in the clause. Why not just include the Government’s approach to this issue in the Bill?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he just lost a division on that matter, but I am sure we will return to it on Report. He may consider his drafting to be better than that of my Home Office officials, but I must take a contrary view. I confirmed the Government’s approach in response to questions raised on Second Reading, and, as members of the Committee will have noted, once we leave the EU, Irish citizens will be exempt from the automatic deportation provisions for criminality in the UK Borders Act 2007.

The clause amends section 9 of the Immigration Act 1971 so that restrictions placed on those who enter the UK from the CTA by order under that section will not apply to Irish citizens. It also amends schedule 4 to that Act, which deals with the integration of UK law and the immigration law of the islands—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The schedule provides broadly that leave granted or refused in the islands has the same effect as leave granted or refused in the UK. The clause disapplies those provisions in relation to Irish citizens who do not require such leave under the Bill. They also make it lawful for an Irish citizen—unless they are subject to a deportation or exclusion order—to enter the UK from the islands, regardless of their status in them.

The clause aims to support the wider reciprocal rights enjoyed by British and Irish citizens in the other state. Citizens will continue to work, study, access healthcare and social security benefits, and vote in certain elections when they are in the other state. I reiterate that once free movement ends, Irish citizens in the UK will be able to bring family members to the UK on the same basis as British citizens, because they are considered to be settled from day one of their arrival in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

Clause 3 is minor and technical in nature, but it is important for the implementation of the Bill and to ensure that we have a fully functioning statute book. Subsection (1) ensures that the Bill, when enacted, will be covered by any reference to “the Immigration Acts”, which are the Acts of Parliament that govern the UK’s immigration system. They enable, for example, grants of leave to enter and remain, and the deportation of individuals.

References to the Immigration Acts can be found across the statute book. For example, section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 requires that functions conferred by virtue of the Immigration Acts are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. Clause 3 will ensure that functions conferred by regulations under the Bill must be discharged according to that duty in relation to the best interests of children. Such a provision is standard for an immigration Bill, and clauses that have the same purpose and effect are included in previous Immigration Acts. For example, section 73 of the Immigration Act 2014 and section 92 of the Immigration Act 2016 both provide that those Acts are included in the definition of Immigration Acts.

Subsection (2) clarifies that the Bill is not retained EU law. That means that it is not part of the body of law that will have been saved in UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is important to make it clear that the Bill cannot be treated as retained EU law. For example, it cannot be amended by the deficiencies power under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act or any other powers to deal with retained EU law.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Consequential etc provision

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State may only make regulations which are necessary rather than those which the Minister considers appropriate.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 14th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Q The withdrawal agreement does not stop us going further. What is your unhappiness with it?

Jeremy Morgan: It is more on the rights that we have in the EU. We have lost our freedom of movement rights, so the people who Kalba mentioned, who have moved to Europe—not necessarily to the Netherlands or to Luxembourg—have lost their right to move around. Many of them move there precisely because it is a very mobile market. People with IT skills, for example, work a two-year contract in one country and go to another. There are so many British people who have taken advantage of that, made lives for themselves, and ended up, in the course of that, picking up a family from one of the countries they have stayed in.

It has become a very complex system. Taking that right away from them is very serious indeed. The British do not have it in their gift, although at an early stage in the negotiations, I think in September 2017, the British offered to give EU citizens in the UK indefinite right to return. At present, you are allowed to be away for five years with your settled status, and then you lose it. The offer was to make that a lifetime right to return in exchange for freedom of movement for UK citizens in the EU. That was not accepted by the EU at the time, and has not been pushed as hard as it should have been since, because it is a terribly sensible arrangement.

[Caroline Nokes]

Q Thank you very much for your evidence, and for taking the time to come to see us and to set out your concerns so clearly. Do you think that this Bill is the right place to put citizens’ rights in primary legislation, or do you think that would better be done in the withdrawal Bill at the appropriate time?

Kalba Meadows: There is a timing issue, in that the UK may leave the EU in six weeks with no deal. That does not leave very long to legalise the rights of British citizens living abroad. If we know that the EU27 states are looking for legal guarantees for their own citizens living here, we do not have very long to do it. They will be looking for those in order to put into place their own legislation. I would have concerns about leaving it too long.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

Q Is it your contention that we should not have an agricultural worker scheme, and should perhaps seek to do away with tier 5?

Chai Patel: I would have to think about that. Perhaps we can respond in written evidence later. I am afraid I have not thought that through.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Q One final question. Under the EU settlement scheme, the plan is that people are not to be presented with a physical document but essentially with a bit of code that the employer can go away and check. Does that give rise to any concerns about how that will work?

Chai Patel: Yes. The key reason why discrimination happens under, for example, right to rent is not that landlords, or whoever needs to do the check, are prejudiced; it is the administrative hassle of having to deal with it. It is simple just to check a British passport. By not giving people a physical document, you are creating a massive problem for them in terms of having equal access to work, housing or other things that they might need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

T7. The Home Secretary has rightly commended those employers planning to reimburse EU employees for the cost of their settled status applications, but has he persuaded the Chancellor that taxing such payments would be counterproductive and utterly unfair?

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which I know he raised at the Home Affairs Committee last week and again with me in Westminster Hall last week. Both the Home Secretary and I have undertaken to raise that with the Chancellor, who is obviously, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, on the Front Bench this afternoon.

EU Settled Status Scheme

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister has made a lot of helpful comments in response to some of our questions. Two remain, but I do not know if she can answer them today. First, will she simply clarify why there is a discrepancy between the statement of intent and the immigration rules in relation to the non-exercise of EU rights being a ground for refusal? Secondly, will she revisit why we have to have this severe cut-off point? What will happen to people who do not apply in time before the end of the scheme?

[Caroline Nokes]

We have indicated that there will be a proportionate approach to those who do not apply in time, which I am very conscious could be for very good reason, such as ill health. It is important that we do not penalise people who have every right to be here. We are determined to be as welcoming as possible. We are working to make sure that we articulate that properly, not only through our communications but through the immigration rules.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I reassure hon. Members that at no point throughout this process have we underestimated the challenge of granting immigration status to more than 3 million people. However, we have made a strong start, and we have everything in place to make this whole process a success.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 13th November 2018 General Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions to the debate and should like to address some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton commented on the concerns about the combined cost of the charge and visa fees, and I am conscious of those, but the charge is set at a competitive level and will remain low compared with the potential benefits—free access to the NHS, including GP care and accident and emergency care, as well as routine scheduled healthcare. It offers far better value than private medical insurance, where premiums are much more expensive. If we consider the international comparison, in Australia, for example, the annual price of an insurance policy would be in the region of £302 per year for a student, but if it was for a student and a partner, that might increase to somewhere in the region of the equivalent of £1,700.

As I said, the Department of Health and Social Care studied very closely the average cost of treatment to migrants and that transpired to be in the region of £470 each per year. The Government are clear that migrants must pay the charge when they make an application and should plan their finances accordingly. Both the cost of the health charge and the application fee are available online and are very clear. Those in a vulnerable situation are protected. Immigration application fee waivers are available on specified human rights routes, where a migrant is exercising the right to remain in the UK based on family but is destitute or would be rendered destitute by payment of the immigration application fee.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

When I speak to people practising immigration law who are dealing with clients in this position, they say that it is virtually impossible to get a fee waiver. In fact, as I understand it, fewer than 8% of children are successful in obtaining one. That leaves them, as I said earlier, facing a charge of more than £10,000 as they go on the long route to settlement. Surely the Minister cannot be comfortable with that.

[Caroline Nokes]

As the shadow Minister highlighted earlier, we keep our fees and charges under review, but at £400 per year, the fee is less than the average amount that the NHS spends on treating migrants. That is why the Government regard it as being fair. We know that children are higher users of national health services than their parents.

I am aware that there have been calls for NHS professionals to be exempt from the charge. The Government fully recognise the important contribution that international healthcare professionals make to the UK, but it is only right that they also make a proportionate contribution to the long-term sustainability of the NHS. In that regard, NHS professionals are in the same position as other providers of essential public services, including teachers.

I recognise that there are some concerns about the financial impact on nurses. However, the answer is not to exempt nurses from the charge but to increase their pay, and that is happening. All NHS nurses will benefit from a pay increase as set out in the Agenda for Change framework.

We are in the process of negotiating reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the European Union. We have reached an agreement with the EU on citizens’ rights that will protect those EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK by the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020. That will provide the same entitlement to access public services and benefits, according to the same rules as now. In the unlikely event of no deal, the Prime Minister has already confirmed that all EU citizens resident here by 29 March 2019 will be welcome to stay.

The Government believe that it is right that migrants make a fair contribution to the extensive and high-quality range of NHS services available to them during their stay, in line with their temporary immigration status. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put.

Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister’s very clear statements on this. As part of Brexit we will end free movement, giving us back control of our borders, which is what I believe people voted for in 2016 and which I know my hon. Friend wants.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Citizens need clarity, and many are here in Parliament today precisely because they have not had it—and, I regret to say, still do not have it. Unilateral guarantees are welcome, but do not provide a complete answer. Do the Government support a ring-fencing of the citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement, so that they can be enforced under international law even after a no deal? Is that not the most obvious and best solution to pursue? Has that been discussed at all in negotiations so far? If not, would those unilateral rights be totally unprotected from unilateral change via the immigration rules, and how would pension rights be protected, and rights to access healthcare, or mutual recognition of professional qualifications? Finally, if there is a no-deal Brexit, will the scope and the rights set out for the settled status scheme be just as they are now, or would there be changes—for example, will those short of five years still be able to obtain pre-settled status, and how will people be able to challenge Home Office decisions?

Asylum Accommodation Contracts

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on having secured the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. I will do my best in the time allowed to answer all the questions asked of me. Members did incredibly well in their four allocated minutes to convey their key points. It is always a huge frustration when time runs out. I will undoubtedly drive my officials, who are sat behind me, slightly potty, because I am about to divert completely from my script and respond to some of the important points that have been made, for which I apologise.

In no particular order, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made a point about dispersal engagement. No doubt I will at some point return to my script and find the actual points that I am supposed to make on this issue, which will no doubt detail precisely the engagement that has already taken place. Suffice it to say that I am conscious of the debt we owe those local authorities that are part of the dispersal areas and which work incredibly hard to make available services and facilities to enable those seeking asylum to integrate into local communities.

We have already started a dialogue about how we can increase the number of dispersal areas. We all know that the more that we are able to disperse asylum seekers among different local authorities, the easier it is for those authorities to manage. Indeed, it is better for our communities for there to be a wide range of people living within them and contributing to the better integration of asylum seekers.

I have engaged in discussions over the past few months with some metropolitan mayors, local authorities, the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other groups of local authorities that come together—it would be wrong of me to try to remember all of the local authorities that I have engaged with. Serious conversations are ongoing about how we can increase the number of dispersal areas, whether I have the power to mandate that and whether that is the right way forward. In my view, it is better to engage with local authorities and to encourage them to take part in dispersal schemes. My gut instinct is that that has to be the right way.

I have learned from engagement with local authorities—hon. Members might expect to hear this from someone who spent a happy 12 years on a local authority—that they sometimes come up with the best solutions and ideas. I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) will undoubtedly pick me up on this, but it is true that no local authorities have come forward as part of this bidding process. It may well be that the procurement process that we are bound to take part in, as current members of the European Union, is too prohibitive and difficult for local authorities, which would be a matter of profound regret.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

City councils have provided asylum accommodation while the United Kingdom has been a member of the European Union, so it is not the European Union that is at fault here but the design of the contract. Glasgow City Council previously provided such accommodation, but it cannot, for example, provide asylum accommodation for the whole of Scotland. It has to be broken down into much smaller units.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Glasgow City Council will of course not seek to provide accommodation for the whole of Scotland, and perhaps there is a very good case for breaking contracts down further, which might increase engagement from local authorities. I have to say that I am never averse to the greater engagement and involvement of local authorities. We all know that, first, local authorities are very good at providing services and, secondly, people in a crisis often turn to the local authority first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am conscious that I only have a couple of minutes left and I was hoping to move on to the bits of my prepared speech that actually include those points.

Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we continue to explore how central and local government can work better together to enable us to meet our international commitments and to let service providers, local partners and civil society play their part. We are currently working with a number of local authorities to develop a place-based approach to asylum and resettlement, and considering how closer working and greater collaboration could work in practice.

As I have said, I have met many local authorities and the devolved Governments, but we are determined to improve standards and will stipulate more standardisation in the initial accommodation estate. That will ensure that there are dedicated areas for women and families, and more adapted rooms for those with specific needs, including pregnant women.

The new contracts will improve service-user orientation, to help service users to live in their communities and access local services. There will be better data-sharing with relevant agencies, to better join people to those services. The new contracts will also focus on safeguarding and improvements to support—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sorry; I have got one minute left.

The new contracts will also focus on safeguarding and improvements to support vulnerable service users, which will build on the enhancements to safeguarding that have been put in place across the immigration system over recent years. Standardised health checks will be introduced to identify those with specific physical and mental health needs, and we will provide more uniform training for providers’ staff on safeguarding.

I also want the new contracts to improve advice services. We will introduce a national contract to provide advice to and assist destitute asylum seekers in making support applications.

The new contracts will further improve engagement with other agencies, and the accommodation provider will be required, during the normal course of its operations, to liaise and co-operate with other organisations, including local authorities, the voluntary sector, the NHS and the police, which will ensure that the interests of the service users are best served.

I am clear that I want the new contracts to build on the groundwork for a constructive relationship between central Government, local government, the private sector and civil society, for the benefit of communities and those seeking asylum.

British Citizenship Fees: Children

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

I will turn to the rights of children in comments that I will make in response to other Members, so I will come to my hon. Friend’s point very shortly.

The framework of charging, and in particular the principle of setting fees to reflect benefits accruing from a successful application, has enabled us to reflect the value that people get from the services that they receive, with indefinite leave to remain and citizenship rightly being the two most valuable outcomes.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We are getting to the crux of the matter. Does the Minister accept that the statutory right to citizenship is completely different from an immigration application, indefinite leave to remain, or anything else? These kids have a right to citizenship. It is no more appropriate to charge them an extra fee to subsidise other parts of the immigration and nationality system than it would be to charge any of us a fee for our British nationality. It is a different thing altogether.

[Caroline Nokes]

If the hon. Gentleman allows me to make some progress, I will turn to the points he made in his opening speech.

During 2017-18, about 64,000 people were granted indefinite leave to remain and 123,000 were granted citizenship. Of those granted citizenship, more than 28,000 were minor children who were registered and were related to a British citizen, or children granted citizenship on a discretionary basis. In all cases the applicants either paid the due fee or had that fee paid on their behalf, reflecting the value placed on permanent residence and citizenship in the UK.

The charging framework for visa and immigration services delivered £1.35 billion of income in the last financial year, 2017-18. That helped to fund more than £620 million of costs associated with other immigration system functions, helping to maintain their effectiveness and security, and investment in ongoing service improvement. Setting fees at above the cost of processing an application has also helped us to set some fees at below cost—for example, short-term visit visas, in recognition of the significant economic benefits that tourists and other visitors bring to the whole of the UK. The subsidy for the circa 2.5 million short-term visit visas issued each year costs in the region of £90 million per annum, which can be afforded only by setting a wide range of other fees.

Let me make one other obvious point: setting fees at the level that we do—putting the burden on those who benefit from the services—reduces the burden on the Exchequer and on the general taxpayers of this country. It is easy, particularly in opposition, to call for fees or taxes to be reduced, but a responsible Government must balance the books. The loss of income that would result from any reduction in fees would have to be made up elsewhere, and there have been rather fewer suggestions of how that might be achieved.

Turning to the nub of the issue, safeguarding the welfare of children has always been and will continue to be a priority for the Home Office that it takes very seriously, for the reasons raised by hon. Members. I am concerned by any suggestion that the current fee levels for child registration are putting children off from registering, or making it more difficult for those entitled to register to operate in our society when they reach adulthood. For that reason, I met the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East just before the summer recess. He was accompanied on that occasion by some of those involved in campaigning. I listened very carefully to what they said and undertook to reflect on the matter, which is exactly what I am doing.

The issue is also very much on the radar of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), referred to the comments he made when he appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. I am sorry that I am not in a position to give a firm answer today, but that certainly does not mean that either the Home Secretary or I are ignoring the issue or have put it on the backburner.

I reassure the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), that we are working hard, but it is a complex issue and decisions cannot be taken in isolation. They must be taken in the round, taking into account any wider implications, for example on fees charged to other groups of applicants and the impact on the Home Office budget. I wholly rebut the suggestion that the Home Office is profiteering. In 2017-18, the total Home Office expenditure was £12.9 billion, which was funded by £10.5 billion from the Exchequer and £2.5 billion generated from income.

In due course, we will also need to consider the findings of the review of the borders, immigration and citizenship chargeable services by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that will conclude later this year. I will update the House as soon as I am in a position to do so. In the meantime, the Home Office will continue to consider granting leave to remain to a child who has lived in the UK continuously for seven years, or to a young person who is over 18 but under 25 and has lived continuously in the UK for half of their life. Such leave gives the person concerned the right to live, study and work in the UK and the right, in appropriate circumstances, to receive benefits from public funds.

An application can be made to the Home Office for the fee to be waived when the applicant is making one of a set of specified human rights-based claims for leave to remain and when there are reasons why the applicant cannot meet the payment required. Those human rights-based claims include those that are relevant to a child who has been in the UK continuously for seven years. That will ensure that the Home Office meets its core requirements to safeguard children and ensure their welfare, but we are working on a proportionate response to the representations made on child citizenship fees and will announce the outcome as soon as is practical.

Hon. Members have raised a number of points regarding young people who might be unaware of the requirement to register, and what specifically can be done to improve their knowledge of that. We are considering what more can be done using different channels. I am very conscious that, as Members have mentioned today, our immigration system can be complex, particularly for those who do not have experience or knowledge of it from the outset. It is important that we improve our processes and introduce online application systems that are intuitive and enable people to work through the parts of the process that apply to them and bypass those that do not. I am conscious that, as has been mentioned, young people perhaps do not go to gov.uk as a first port of call. We have to focus on what more we can do to better reach out to them through channels that they might use.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised a range of issues. At one point she sought to conflate British citizenship with the settled status process for EU citizens who are living in the UK that we have recently launched, and which is currently in its private beta testing mode. It is a crucial part of our commitment to EU citizens, and the fees for it were set in agreement with the EU. It is wrong to conflate EU settled status with British citizenship because many EU citizens might choose, both now and in the future, to apply for British citizenship in addition to their settled status.

The hon. Lady mentioned young people who might discover that they do not have the same ability to travel abroad as their classmates for school trips, which is important. The Home Office works closely with education authorities to help to establish length of residence and reaches out to schools and those organising school trips to make those applications possible. We are willing to work with other public bodies to help make those applications as easy as we can.

Draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 16th July 2018 General Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about those Commonwealth citizens who have been affected by issues related to Windrush. The key issue for the Windrush generation is that they did not have documentation to evidence their legal immigration status, which is why it is so crucial that EU citizens and their family members apply under this scheme, so that they will be able to evidence their status in future.

We have engaged comprehensively with stakeholders throughout the process.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

On the issue of engagement, as I said earlier, the Home Office has repeatedly said that it will not require fingerprints from EU nationals, but these regulations appear to allow for that to happen. Can the Minister clarify that?

[Caroline Nokes]

For absolute clarity, the regulations allow for the collection of fingerprints from the non-EU family members of EU citizens. We will not collect fingerprints from EU citizens.

We have engaged with EU citizens at every stage of the development process, and will continue to do so. We recently set up a user group specifically for vulnerable users, which has enabled us to draw on important and useful information from organisations such as Age UK. We will continue to expand our communications to ensure that EU citizens are aware of the scheme, how it will operate and what information they will need to provide, and that they are reassured that they will have plenty of time to apply for their new UK immigration status.

The issue of fees was raised. That matter was comprehensively examined last week in front of the Exiting the European Union Committee. It is clear that the fee was agreed with the EU when we were conducting the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal negotiations and, with a process that will take three years to complete, I absolutely expect that the average family will be able to save up the amount required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is of course absolutely right to point out how important it is that we distinguish between people who settle here legally and those who are here illegally. It is vital that the compliant environment protects vulnerable people and that appropriate safeguards are built into the measures. We remain committed to tackling illegal immigration and to encouraging compliance with our rules and laws.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

This weekend, we learned of an Ethiopian asylum seeker who was removed even before his application had been decided, requiring a court to order his return here. How did that happen, and is it not now time to hand asylum decisions over to an independent body?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in the final part of his question. It is important that UK Visas and Immigration continues to work to establish people’s right to be here on a fair and humane basis. The Home Office is absolutely committed to making sure that we consider each case on its own merits.

Family Visitor Visas

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 9th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, but it is important that visa applications are considered consistently wherever the individual comes from in the world and whether they have family here or not. When we are seeking to attract visitors to the UK, we do not wish to discriminate against people who do not have family members here, which he pointed out was important.

That brings me to the third petition, on appeals. As we heard earlier, family visitor appeals were removed by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. At that point, no other type of entry clearance application, including those involving work or study in the UK, carried a full right of appeal in the event of refusal. The wide-ranging appeals reform introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 means that rights of appeal are now available only in cases involving asylum or humanitarian protection, human rights or rights under EU law. Where someone makes an application for a visitor visa and that application is refused, they will be provided with reasons for that refusal. It is open to those who have been refused to make a fresh application in which they can address any reasons given for the previous refusal.

There are practical reasons why a new application is a better approach than an appeal, both generally and for the individual visitor. Before the removal of the appeal right, such appeals accounted for about a third of all immigration appeals and, because of the volume of such cases in the system, they could take up to eight months to be concluded. Asylum appeals and other appeals on fundamental rights issues were therefore also delayed.

By the time the appeal had been determined, the circumstances might well have changed. For example, a document relevant to the application may have been found. There was also the possibility that the family event for which the visa was needed had already taken place, in which case the visitor, the person being visited and the appeal system—everyone—lost out. By contrast, the service standard for straightforward non-settlement visa applications is 99% processed within 15 days.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I do not think it is fair to say we are asking for an appeal right instead of the ability to put in a second application; it is about having the choice. If there is urgency about it, someone can make a second application. However, if they receive two or three refusals, surely the only way they will ever be able to challenge that is through an appeal.

[Caroline Nokes]

Speed is important, but also when someone receives a refusal the reasons are given and can be addressed in a fresh application.

The removal of the right of appeal for family visitor visas was regarded as a proportionate measure to ensure that a right of appeal was available in the most significant and complex cases and that another avenue—that of making a new application taking into account the reasons for refusal—was available in visitor visa cases. However, I accept that sometimes mistakes are made and I take the distress caused very seriously. I reassure hon. Members that if a customer is unhappy with any aspect of the service they receive, there are routes to provide feedback, request a refund or lodge a complaint. Those are all made clear in the communications that go out to customers at every point of their application. Locally, teams rigorously interrogate complaints data and respond to arising issues.

I reassure Members that the Government are absolutely committed to welcoming genuine visitors to the UK. I take seriously my duty to balance border security and the priority of having a high-performing, customer-focused and continually improving visa service.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

In discussions with the EU, ambassadors and heads of member states, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is reinforcing that message at every point. There has been significant investment in time and resources to make sure that we have a scheme and a process that will work. We need our European friends and neighbours to reciprocate.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

There was plenty to welcome in this statement, but the Minister ducked the fundamental question about what happens to the tens, if not hundreds of thousands who will inevitably miss the cut-off date. What will their status be and what did she mean when she referred to a proportionate response?

[Caroline Nokes]

We are absolutely determined to work to make sure that as many EU citizens as possible are registered ahead of the deadline, but we will give a reasonable period in which to apply. For those who miss the deadline and have a good reason for doing so, we will of course have a response that is both pragmatic and takes into account individual circumstances, should people have been, for whatever reason—whether through ill health or mental illness—prevented from applying. We will further discuss these issues with stakeholders over coming weeks to make sure that we get it right.

Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is an extensive judicial process, whereby individuals seeking to stay in this country may apply to the first tier and, indeed, the upper tier tribunal at any stage in the process that they may apply for judicial review. We are determined to make the immigration system as fair as we possibly can, but also to uphold our rules.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The large-scale, routine detention of thousands of human beings in private prisons for an indeterminate period simply at the discretion of immigration officers is, frankly, a stain on our democracy and an affront to the rule of law. This most recent horrible episode in a detention facility is far from the first, as hon. Members know, and it will not be the last unless there is radical change. Why does the UK detain more than other European countries? Why can every other EU country manage with a time limit on immigration detention, but not the UK? Why do the Government continue to detain vulnerable people, including victims of torture, to the serious detriment of their health and wellbeing? It is very welcome that the shadow Home Secretary has brought this issue to the House, but will the Government have the courage to allow this House a binding vote and the chance to make it clear that it is time for radical reform of the UK immigration detention regime and that it is time for a limit?

[Caroline Nokes]

Immigration officials always consider individuals in detention on a case-by-case basis and put their welfare absolutely at the forefront. Some 95% of people with no right to be in this country are managed within the community. Only 5% will be within the immigration removal centres at any one time. They are only there when there is a realistic chance of removal, and we always seek to ensure that they are removed as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will have heard me say earlier that we will come forward with an immigration Bill in due course. He will also have heard me undertake to ensure that the House is updated on our EU exit policies in regular time, and that will of course happen.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I start by associating my party with the Home Secretary’s remarks about the tragedy in Leicester. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with the families.

The Minister suggests that the tier 2 cap situation is under review. With respect, that is not good enough. Failed applicants in the past three months may have no option but to apply again in the months ahead, making it ever more competitive for tier 2 certificates of sponsorship, which will make the problem much worse. Surely, if there is some sort of review, or if we have to wait for the Migration Advisory Committee, it makes sense to lift the cap in the meantime.

[Caroline Nokes]

We are very clear that businesses should look first to employ people from within the UK, and we remain committed to reducing migration to sustainable levels. Interestingly, businesses have told us that our system compares well with our global competitors and that businesses like its speed and certainty.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The system works well for some businesses, but not for all. Breaching the tier 2 cap essentially meant that, to qualify for a certificate of sponsorship in December 2017, a job was required to offer a salary of £55,000 or above. That might be common enough for multinational companies in London, but it is much rarer elsewhere.

Given the Government say that they want a system that works for the whole United Kingdom, will the Minister make available information on the geographic spread of jobs that qualified for certificates of sponsorship over the past three months when the cap was breached?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, we keep a separate shortage occupation list for Scotland, if that is what he is referring to, but that broadly reflects the shortage occupations across the whole UK. We look carefully at this issue, as he might expect, but it is important that he reflects on the fact that we are determined to have an immigration system in the UK that works for the whole country.

Refugee Children: Family Reunion in the UK

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Thank you, Dame Cheryl. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing this debate and I reassure him I will certainly leave him a couple of minutes at the end.

I start by thanking everyone here today who has contributed with thought-provoking and compassionate contributions. I have listened carefully to the many accounts of how important it has been for refugees in Members’ own constituencies to have their family members join them, to support their wellbeing and their integration into society. Like other Front-Bench spokespeople, I will not pick out individual contributions at length as I am conscious that I am very short on time, but I would reassure hon. Members that during the past five weeks or so that I have been in this role, I have taken the time to meet representatives from charities in my own constituency and nationally. I was particularly moved to meet Lana and Yameena, two Southampton University students. Lana had very specific experience of refugees when she was living in France and her family had welcomed a number of young refugees into her home. She was very clear to describe them to me as her brothers.

I assure the House that we are listening to the concerns about refugee family reunion. I know from my early discussions with non-governmental organisations and international organisations the importance placed on the issues, and that has been reinforced during our debate today. They are also issues my predecessor discussed on many occasions with NGOs, in the context of our wider asylum and resettlement strategy. I look forward to continuing that important work.

Several colleagues have focused on the question of extending the family reunion criteria, which is the subject of Baroness Hamwee’s private Member’s Bill and of the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—if the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) can be nervous about the pronunciation of that, he can probably imagine how I feel—which was introduced earlier this week and is due to come before this House for Second Reading on 16 March.

The Government’s policy objective for refugee family reunion remains to ensure that we are able to bring together pre-flight families and dependents who are in precarious or compelling circumstances. We must ensure that our policies support those who need our protection who cannot remain in their country or region of origin. I would therefore ask hon. Members to reflect on the policy objective of the private Member’s Bill, because the proposals, as currently drafted, would go far beyond that. It could lead to the policy being used by significantly more people who have no protection needs or who are not necessarily in precarious positions.

The Government strongly support the principle of family unity and we have a comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion set out in the immigration rules and our family reunion policy. Our starting point is that family reunion is a matter for immigration rules and policy, rather than primary legislation. Many hon. Members have highlighted that the family reunion rules provide only for immediate family members of refugees, but the immigration rules and resettlement schemes provide for extended family members to join their family here, if they are in the most precarious and dangerous circumstances.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is right to highlight that there are other routes available to different family members, but will she comment on the maintenance and accommodation test? Even if an applicant can show that they are living in the most compelling compassionate circumstances, that application could still be rejected because the sponsor in the United Kingdom does not meet a certain financial or accommodation threshold. Surely that is an unjust way to go about things.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that with me. That is one of the points that I will take away with me from today’s debate.

We provide for British citizens to sponsor family members, there is provision to grant visas outside the rules in exceptional cases, and the mandate refugee scheme enables those recognised by the UNHCR as refugees to join close family members here in the UK.

I have noted the concerns raised today that so-called family reunification under the Dublin regulations may no longer be available post Brexit. However, Dublin does not confer immigration status simply because an individual has a family member in the UK. It is a mechanism for deciding the member state responsible for considering an asylum claim. It is for those seeking asylum and not those granted refugee status.

Having said that I was not going to pick up particular points, I would like to pick up on those made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who raised the Sandhurst treaty. Many Members have referenced Dublin III and the Dubs scheme. I was fortunate in 2015-16 to be a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe with Alf Dubs—he insisted that I call him Alf at all times, so I apologise if I refer to him incorrectly today. Travelling abroad with Lord Dubs was an incredibly instructive experience. The Sandhurst treaty was signed very soon after I came into this role—I think within the first two weeks.

I reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that we have committed £3.6 million to enable us to strengthen our co-operation with France on the operation of the Dublin regulation and the development fund, and to work with it to identify projects that support genuine claims through the Dublin process. A significant part of the Sandhurst treaty was about looking at the whole route for refugees. It is crucially important that we do not look at it in isolation either in the middle east and north Africa region or in Calais. We have to look at the entire journey that individuals make.

On the 480 children that will be accepted under Dubs—the number was at 220 when I came into this role—we are determined to ensure that, by changing the date and working closely with Greece and Italy, we fulfil that requirement. I regard it to be an absolute priority to take the 480 young people we have committed to.

Anyone transferred under the Dublin regulation will be expected to leave the UK if they are found not to need protection. Our family reunion rules will continue to enable immediate family members to reunite with their loved ones in the UK safely, regardless of the country in which they are based.

Pretty much every hon. Member raised legal aid and the cost of legal representation for family reunion cases. On 30 October, the Lord Chancellor announced the start of a review of legal aid reforms, which will include an assessment of the changes to the scope of legal aid for immigration cases, and will report later this year. Although family reunion cases generally do not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, exceptional case funding may be made available where it is legally required. We are committed to providing clear guidance and application forms to support applicants through the family reunion process, and are working with key partners such as the British Red Cross and UNICEF to improve the process for considering family reunion applications.

It is vital that our focus remains on those most in need of our protection—particularly those fleeing conflict. The Government have invested significantly in supporting the most vulnerable refugees through our resettlement programmes, which offer safe and legal routes to protection and are designed to keep families together. By 2020, we will have resettled 20,000 refugees from Syria. We announced this week that we are at the halfway point, so 10,000 vulnerable families have been resettled in this country and a further 3,000 children and families have been resettled from the wider MENA region. Last year, we provided 6,212 people with protection under all our resettlement schemes. Over the past five years we have issued 24,700 family reunion visas, and since 2010 we have provided 49,830 people with protection status in the UK—they are entitled to apply for their qualifying members to join them.

I believe that our comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion already caters for the types of case that hon. Members are concerned about and provides safe and legal routes for families to reunite here. However, we need to concentrate our efforts on ensuring that our existing resettlement schemes are used to full effect, and that the current rules work properly and effectively. In that way, we will continue to help those who need it most.

I have already met representatives from UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I thank the Refugee Council for sending me the report “Safe but Not Settled”, which looks at how the separation of refugees in the UK from their family members affects their successful integration into their new life in the UK. I look forward to further meetings with representatives of the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations to discuss the important issue of family reunion in the coming weeks.

I therefore ask hon. Members from both sides of the House and representatives of NGOs to continue working with the Government to build on the existing family reunion policy and process to make our resettlement schemes and immigration rules work in the most effective way. In that way, we can ensure that more families are reunited as quickly, legally and safely as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office (Caroline Nokes)]

The whole Government are preparing for the UK to make an orderly and successful exit from the European Union. We are equipping ourselves with the right people and the right skills across the Government to make that happen. Although workforce planning is primarily the responsibility of each Department to determine, the civil service constantly reviews its capabilities in this respect.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

After a decade of austerity, it seems that £400 million and 8,000 new staff, including 5,000 for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, can be found to deal with Brexit. Will the Minister tell Treasury and HMRC bosses that it is more ludicrous than ever to propose to close Cumbernauld tax office, with its experienced and dedicated workforce?

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Cabinet Office works closely with HMRC on workforce planning and, indeed, on Government hubs, with which we are seeking to make sure that we make the best possible use of our resources to provide an effective civil service that provides the best service for his constituents.