Immigration Update
Debate between Tom Pursglove and Nigel Mills
Tom Pursglove
I am a British citizen who is in this country legally. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will allow me to finish the point, it is entirely right and proper that people are detained on a legal basis for the purposes of removal under this policy, but there are always safeguards around that. I will gladly accept the letter from the hon. Lady and ensure it reaches the right destination in the Home Office. We will, in the normal way, look carefully at any concerns she wishes to raise. I recognise that she is entirely opposed to the policy objective we are seeking to advance. There is a principled disagreement there—she thinks I am wrong about this, I think she is wrong—but if she would like to share those specific points with me, I will gladly ensure that she receives a full response.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The signs of a fall in net migration will be welcomed across Amber Valley. Can I raise my concerns about the situation where a young UK national works abroad for a while and forms a relationship, but is not yet earning enough to sponsor their spouse to live in the UK? Is there more we can do to help in this situation, perhaps by clarifying in the guidance that they can use both their salaries to meet the earnings threshold?
Tom Pursglove
There has been no change to the way that the various family visa requirements can be met, through savings and the like. We had a good debate last week in Westminster Hall on the important safeguard of article 8 rights. As part of the consideration of any application, all those factors are given proper and due consideration to ensure we get the right decisions on individual cases. We think it is right to introduce these salary changes—they are being increased incrementally and not applied retrospectively—but as I say, there is an important safeguard around article 8 rights.
Draft Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023
Draft Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023
Debate between Tom Pursglove and Nigel Mills(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Pursglove
I suppose I might say that it is very easy for a party to have one shadow Minister when it has a very limited policy platform to advance on the substance of the migration and borders portfolio.
On the Home Office’s ability to collect the fines, we have robust debt recovery strategies in place to maximise the opportunities to collect outstanding debt. This is difficult debt to collect, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The organisations that we are dealing with are often determined to act in a non-compliant way. That is the nature of the activity to which we are responding through these schemes.
Of the £355 million raised throughout the life of the scheme, approximately 56% of debt has been recovered or discounted for compliance and faster payment. More recently, between January 2023 and November 2023, more than 1,400 right-to-work civil penalties were issued, to a value of over £26 million. Within the same period, 140 right-to-rent civil penalties were issued, to a value of over £136,000. I know that the Department continues to strive to improve collection rates wherever possible; it is a real area of focus.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Can the Minister help me with one question? I am trying to work out what the increase in the penalties is trying to achieve. Is the problem that people do not know that the penalties exist and therefore end up breaking the law unwittingly, or is it that they know the law but think, “Actually, I can make loads of money out of this, so it’s worth the risk of a penalty because I probably won’t get detected”? Is it the purpose of increasing the penalty to break that economic equation?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The rationale for the level of the penalty is to focus on deterring people from going about these practices, which are very harmful in many respects and which have the adverse consequences that I have mentioned. The Government believe that employers, landlords or letting agents that employ or let to individuals without status should face much higher penalties as a matter of principle. Also, the value of the penalties has not been revised recently, so we think the time is right to have another look at them and revise the levels to those that I have set out. The higher expected cost of non-compliance aims to reduce the number of landlords, letting agents and employers who engage in this activity, with the ultimate aim of driving changes in behaviour and reducing the incidence of non-compliant letting and employment, which will deter individuals from remaining in the country without status, deter illegal migration, and deter all the root causes.
To finish the point that I was making before I began taking interventions, landlords and lettings agents who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a 30% reduction from £10,000 to £7,000 or from £5,000 to £3,500 as applicable. As is the case now, the maximum penalty will be levied only on an employer, landlord or letting agent that has breached one of the schemes on more than one occasion in a three-year period, where the fast payment option was not used and where no specified mitigating factors apply.
Across both schemes, employers, landlords and letting agents can appeal a civil penalty decision if, following an objection to the Home Office, that decision has been upheld. An appeal must be on the same grounds as the objection, and an employer, landlord or letting agent must appeal within 28 days, registering the appeal at a county court or sheriff court. That provides accidentally non-compliant employers, landlords or letting agents with safeguards against penalties.
In summary, the draft orders aim to change the behaviour of rogue employers, landlords and letting agents; to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance; to deter those contemplating entering the UK illegally; to tackle, where appropriate, the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance; and to deter future non-compliance. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Tom Pursglove and Nigel Mills(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest in this issue. Through the White Paper reforms, we have advocated for a number of tests and trials, including one that focuses specifically on better capturing fluctuating conditions. I would be keen to have conversations with her about that. The Government are committed to working with charities and those that are interested, including disabled people, to ensure we get those reforms right.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I agree with the importance of having a timely assessment. Last week, a constituent raised her case with me: she filled in her renewal form nine months ago, but has been given less than two weeks’ notice for an assessment next week. Surely we need to have assessments when the form is fresh and accurate, not nine months later?
Tom Pursglove
The waiting time for PIP decisions has come down considerably in recent times, but I am not complacent about that, as we want to go further in seeing those waits reduced. For example, being able to apply online is an important part of that journey, as well as improving interfaces and making sure people provide all the right information up front. If we can provide better support for that, it will help us make decisions sooner, which can only be welcome.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Tom Pursglove and Nigel Mills(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Tom Pursglove)
Disability employment advisers have expertise on how to help disabled jobseekers into work and build work coach skills to help these claimants. That is in addition to broader support, including our increased work coach support, the Work and Health programme and intensive, personalised employment support.
Tom Pursglove
I categorically reject the initial point made in the hon. Lady’s question. The fact is that this Government set a target of getting 1 million more disabled people into work and we met it five years early, but now we must go further. That is precisely why we have brought forward the reforms in the White Paper, which we genuinely believe will remove that structural barrier to work. We will have the packages of support alongside this, which I believe people will want to engage with, because they are aspirational and want to enter the workplace. We will never ask people to do anything that is not appropriate for them. We will work on an individualised, case-by-case basis to support customers. Of course, it is absolutely right that we make sure that our services are as accessible as possible, and that is the whole thrust of the reform. The health model officers are helping us to test what works, and we will continue to work along those lines. I hope she will want to work with me, in the spirit of partnership, to make this a success.
Nigel Mills
One frustration for disabled people occurs when they have an assessment that identifies what support or adaptations they need in order to go into work and then that support is never actually available or employers cannot provide it. Is there some source of optimism to be found in the funds and the changes announced in the spring Budget that support will be lined up in advance, so that people can take a job when one is offered to them?