Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Nick Hurd

Thursday 4th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hurd]

I am not sure how fair that is, because I do not know the background to those conversations. However, I know the Immigration Minister well. She is the listening type, and I think she is entirely sincere in saying that she recognises the sensitivities that have emerged from this policy change.

Before I go into why there were changes, it is always helpful to assert the common ground. Many Members—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was particularly powerful on this—spoke about the importance and the value of faith communities in all our constituencies. I think she spoke for many of us in expressing the importance of those communities, not least in giving many people a sense of strength and purpose. I absolutely recognise that from my constituency and the extraordinary work of churches such as Emmanuel Church in Northwood, the Northwood and Pinner Liberal Synagogue and St Martin’s Church in Ruislip, to mention three.

We all know the fundamental truth of that, and I think we all agree with the point about the added value of contributions made by members of religious institutions from overseas, which is at the heart of the debate. That is why the immigration system maintains dedicated arrangements for religious workers, with two dedicated visa categories providing for those seeking to come to the UK to fill long-term vacancies and shorter-term postings. As hon. Members know, the requirements necessarily differ between the two, to ensure that the system is used in an appropriate manner.

The adjective “generous” is not often attached to the Home Office, but we think that this is a generous offer. However, it must be balanced against ensuring that those wishing to lead congregations, regularly performing the primary rites and rituals of their faith, are subject to stronger requirements than those coming to the UK to fill supporting roles for shorter periods. We believe that those tasked with leading roles within our churches, synagogues, mosques and temples must be able to demonstrate a strong command of the English language, which is fundamental to the change to tier 2. The changes that the Government have introduced ensure that all those seeking to undertake such important roles can explain their teachings in English to all in the community, not just to their congregation.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This is fundamental: are churches, mosques and synagogues not better placed to assess the level of English required for priests and other religious leaders to lead worship in their communities, and whether applicants coming in under tier 5 have the skill required?

[Mr Hurd]

I completely understand that point, which was raised earlier. The Government’s position is that it is important that the same rules apply to all, in the interests of fairness, hence the test centre requirements. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that exemptions exist where applicants have been awarded a recognised degree.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the root of the changes introduced in January 2019 was the June 2018 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consultation on the integrated communities strategy. The Green Paper set out the Government’s intention to strengthen English language skills by supporting UK residents and strengthening requirements for those who wish to come here. The rationale behind that approach is that ministers of religion play a visible role in our religious institutions and must therefore be able to integrate with the wider communities in which they live and serve, rather than only being able to speak to their congregations.

[Mr Hurd]

I absolutely understand that point. On the hon. Lady’s direct question on the specific problem of her constituent, while I obviously do not know the individual case, one of the three visa entry routes may well be relevant for the role that she described, not least the visitor visa route. With respect, she should engage on that directly with officials, which I can help to facilitate.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is indeed doing a sterling job in difficult circumstances. On integration, the other fundamental point that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made earlier was that nobody is saying that these people want to come and live here, so integration is not really relevant. They have a job to do over a very short period and then they head back to their home countries. Integration really is not at the heart of this issue, or should not be.

[Mr Hurd]

My understanding of the situation is that, in large part because the Government recognise the importance and value of the contributions to our religious institutions made by people from overseas, we have three separate visa routes in to try to facilitate that process. The changes made in January 2019 require individuals seeking to enter the UK as a minister of religion to use tier 2, demonstrating their command of the English language. To be clear, tier 2 is for religious leaders such as priests, imams, rabbis, missionaries and members of religious orders taking employment or a role within a faith-based community. Those applicants can come for up to three years, with an option to extend for up to six years, and possible indefinite leave to remain after five years’ continuous—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

Some may want to. That is why we have the different tiers of visas for people in different circumstances. I completely understand that the heart of the concern, particularly among Scottish Members of Parliament, is not about individuals who want to stay here longer, but about people coming in to fill gaps over the summer. I completely accept that point. I am just trying to set out, because I was asked to, what the policy background is and trying to answer the fundamental question posed: why have the Government made the changes?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I think that we have just come to the nub of the issue. He is describing different visas, but I think what we have discovered in the course of this debate is that none of them fits the circumstances of what we have been describing this afternoon—people who come temporarily but nevertheless want to carry out the roles of leaders of congregations and ministers of religion. Short-term visas do not allow people to lead a congregation, but the longer-term visas are completely inappropriate, because people are coming only for short-term visits, so we need to invent a new visa. I think that is the ultimate point.

[Mr Hurd]

I am not sure that the Government agree with that position, but it is clearly one held by the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament, so it is clearly something that needs to be discussed and tabled at the roundtable next week with the Minister for Immigration and in subsequent follow-up. That is the nature of this place: we change rules; we make laws. We do that, believe it or not, with good intentions, although conspiracy theories have been articulated this afternoon. We do impact assessments. Then—as in this case—after a few months, issues begin to arise and concerns need to be dealt with. In the democracy that we live in, it is incumbent on the Government and the Minister at the time to listen very carefully, engage with those who have a problem and, in a democratic process, work through that. And I am absolutely sure that the Minister for Immigration will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am grateful for the empathy shown by the hon. Gentleman in saying that I am up against it. He should come to more police debates.

The changes that seem to be causing the most difficulty for hon. Members are the changes to the visa arrangement from tier 5 to tier 2. I have tried to explain that these changes are rooted in the strategy incubated in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which focuses on the importance of reinforcing the need for English language skills and is rooted in a policy directed at greater social cohesion. In relation to the cooling-off period for tier 5, I think I was clear that that was driven by evidence of a small but growing misuse of that system, with people effectively here on a permanent basis. [Interruption.] I have been asked a straight question, and that is a straight answer.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

If these visa changes were introduced on the back of a consultation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is a devolved issue, then that consultation would have nothing to do with Scotland at all. That may be one reason why the particular circumstances that we have been speaking about have not made their way into the Home Office’s thinking about these visas. That might be something the Home Office wants to reflect on for the future.

[Mr Hurd]

I am sure that the Immigration Minister, who will read the record of this debate closely, will want to reflect on that.

Rape Victims: Disclosure of Evidence

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Nick Hurd

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I think everyone in the House wants to see justice done and the truth established through the investigation of all relevant evidence, but I hope we can also all agree that that cannot and does not justify a general trawl through the private life of any citizen. Investigations in pursuit of information must be evidence-led and targeted. That can involve, as the Minister said, a difficult balance, but the policy, as reported today, gets that balance totally wrong.

There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, seeking to establish whether a particular telephone call was made or a text was sent and, on the other hand, insisting on carte blanche to fish through whatever is on a phone. Has the Minister even assessed whether this policy can be justified under the European convention on human rights or data protection laws? More fundamentally, as Rape Crisis Scotland has argued today, is there not a huge danger that such a policy will put people off reporting rape and sexual violence? Just what measures are in place to protect the privacy of those to whom such requests have been made? Surely there must be a more proportionate and sensible way to support justice and protect privacy at the same time.

[Mr Hurd]

I have some sympathy with some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. One very welcome bit of progress we have made as a society in recent years is in building the confidence and trust of victims of previously hidden crimes, be they domestic violence, sexual violence, rape or modern slavery, to come forward—frankly, I am damned if we are going to go backwards on that. I think the House is united on that. Of course there is some underlying risk, which we will monitor extremely carefully through the impact assessment, but I am serious about the counter-risk. If the police do not get consents and if we really do restrict access to mobile phones in this day and age, we will undermine the process of critical improvement in our disclosure process. As I said, the counter-risk is of cases continuing to collapse at the last minute, which is the worst possible outcome. I am sure that he and I would both wish to avoid it.

Eurojust

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Nick Hurd

Monday 14th January 2019 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I, too, 100% welcome the Government’s decision to opt into Eurojust, but I have a couple of quick questions. The first is a simple, practical one: has the Minister had any indication about when we might expect a decision from the European Commission? In particular, will it be before or after the proposed Brexit date?

My second question might seem like a bit of a lawyer’s question, but it arises from what the European Scrutiny Committee has said, if I understand it correctly—forgive me if I have not. In its report, the Committee posed a question about whether the terms of the withdrawal agreement would prevent the UK from opting in, if a decision on the opt-in was eventually made after Brexit, because it would amount to enhanced co-operation. If I understand the Minister correctly, however, he said in his letter that he does not think that it would be enhanced co-operation. Could he say more about how the Government distinguish between enhanced co-operation and something that is essentially different?

If the Committee is right about that, or if, during the two-year transition or implementation period, a new justice and home affairs measure amounts to enhanced co-operation, do the Government believe that the terms of the withdrawal agreement will indeed preclude the United Kingdom opting into those measures? If so, what do the Government have planned to try to get around any difficulties that that might cause—for example, the ejection of the UK from existing measures if it cannot opt into enhanced measures?

[Mr Hurd]

I am struck that there appears to be a level of cross-party consensus on this matter that I have yet to witness in the main Chamber on Brexit. I welcome that. Underlying that is, I think, a recognition that no party or Member of Parliament wants to risk losing capability when it comes to security and the No. 1 priority of any Government, which is the enforcement of the law and the protection of our citizens. I welcome both sets of questions and the recognition of the positive decision to opt in and of the wider agenda to try to secure a security partnership that, as far as possible, maintains our existing capabilities. That is our explicit objective.

The hon. Member for Torfaen asked about planning for the next phase. At the moment, as he would expect, the immediate priority is planning for a no-deal scenario, because the risks have risen and the consequences are potentially severe in terms of loss of capability. He will understand and I hope appreciate that the priority of the Government is to prioritise no-deal planning, not least an agreement on Eurojust or any of the other co-operation mechanisms on security, so that we have more time to establish that. A green light and a signal from the Commission is also required to start to engage in the negotiations, and, for reasons we understand, that has yet to materialise. It is fair to say, if the starting point is a standard third country agreement, that we would hope to do better than that.

I make the same point as I do in the context of Europol, for example, where there are some parallels by virtue of our long history inside the agencies and our weight within them. I gave data that made it clear how important we were in Eurojust, in terms of both requests for support and requests for support from other states, and in Europol we are the second biggest contributor of data. We start those conversations with, “What does the deal look like after we leave? Are we third country or third country plus?” We will argue for third country plus. I have spoken to a number of interior Ministers on this journey, and it is clear to me, certainly in the case of Europol, that there is a clear desire for as much continuity as possible, in recognition of the weight and the important value that the UK adds to those agencies.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised an extremely important point about whether we can do this and how consistent it is with the withdrawal agreement. Our position is that we can. As noted by the Committee, article 127(4) provides that the UK,

“shall not participate in any enhanced cooperation in relation to which authorisation was granted after the date of entry into force of this Agreement”.

However, article 4 of the opt-in protocol provides that the procedure for approval set out in article 331 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union on enhanced co-operation applies mutatis mutandis to the UK opt-in request. Therefore, the UK may only opt in if the Commission or Council approves the request. Here is the essence of it: article 4 uses the process set out in article 331, but this does not in itself constitute enhanced co-operation. We therefore consider that article 127(4) of the withdrawal agreement would not affect the operation of article 4 of the opt-in protocol. That is our understanding and we believe that is the understanding of the Commission; we are just waiting for that in writing, but it forms the basis of why we are proceeding as we are.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East asked about timing. Assuming there is an implementation period, our interpretation is that the Commission has four months to confirm the UK’s request to participate in the Eurojust regulations. That would obviously take us into the period after 31 March, but, for the reasons that I have set out, we think that what we propose is entirely valid, and that, in our view, is the view of the Commission as well.

Independent Review: Deaths in Police Custody

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Nick Hurd

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, drawing on his own experience. As I said in my statement, on every day in every force, the vast majority of the work that the police do is absolutely fantastic and is conducted to the highest levels of integrity and professionalism. Nevertheless, when things go wrong—and they do go wrong—we have to get to the truth and there has to be accountability. The report demonstrates that in the past the journey has been too difficult, there has been too much defensiveness and there has not been a strong enough feeling that the system is on the side of the families and the victims. That is what we have to change.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, and like him I thank Dame Elish Angiolini and her colleagues for their invaluable work. In her report, Dame Elish speaks of the humbling dignity and tenacity of the families of those who have died in police custody, and like the Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I pay tribute to them and those who have supported them.

I have three questions. First, the report suggests that a national coroner service is required to overcome inconsistencies in funding and practice between different local authorities. What is the Government’s initial thinking on that? Secondly, the report emphasises how vital what happens in the immediate aftermath of a death in custody is. Will the IPCC be funded to ensure that an officer or a team can attend quickly after a death in custody to co-ordinate the initial steps, as recommended in the report? Finally, the report reminds us that we must also remember that in 2015 there were 60 deaths of individuals within two days of their leaving police custody. What steps will be taken to ensure that the risks of that happening are properly assessed and reduced?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman makes three important points. The recommendation on a national coroner service is one of the recommendations on which the Government are least persuaded at this time. The ministerial council will explore the idea, but the Government’s first instinct is to explore what further role the Chief Coroner can play in meeting some of the report’s recommendations and requests.

The hon. Gentleman asked about what happens after an incident and the role of the IPCC, and he is clearly critical of that. If he reads some of the Family Listening reports that came out with the review, he will see some really shocking stories of how bereaved families are treated at that deeply traumatic moment. That has to change, and it is one of the things I will be discussing with Michael Lockwood, the first director general of the new Independent Office for Police Conduct.