Warinder Juss
Main Page: Warinder Juss (Labour - Wolverhampton West)Department Debates - View all Warinder Juss's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, as a fellow lawyer, that it is rather unusual to bring retrospective legislation into effect? There have been previous cases where legislation has been made retrospective, but that has been to punish crime. We are talking about ordinary, decent people who have come to this country to better not only their own lives but our lives and those of the rest of the community. Does he agree that it is absolutely wrong to have the law applied retrospectively, and that it puts the legal system to shame?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change.
I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I find myself declaring an interest, because I am an immigrant myself. I was born in east Africa. My parents moved to this country with my two elder brothers: we came to Wolverhampton, and I am very proud to call myself a Wulfrunian and to have the privilege of representing the amazing people of Wolverhampton West, a community in which one in four people, like me, were born outside this country.
This debate is not just about politics; it is about humanity. It is about people who have fled persecution. It is about people we need in this country to work in our NHS, care homes, shops, universities and other places. They are not just seeking a better life for themselves; ultimately, they are contributing to our communities and our economy, just as my family have done. The changes that we are discussing today will have an impact on real lives. We must remember that throughout our discussions.
Over a thousand of my constituents have signed the petitions. They wonder why people who have made this country their home and who live as model citizens—earning a living, paying their taxes and giving a huge amount back to their communities—are now having the rug pulled out from underneath them. One of my constituents, Subhranshu Kumar, is a highly skilled worker who completed his master’s degree here in the UK. Just 14 months away from reaching his settled status, he now finds himself in limbo. He was planning to buy a house next year, but now feels he cannot do that. He is not asking for special treatment; all he wants is for the rules that existed when he decided to come here to remain in place.
Making the proposed immigration reforms retrospective not only undermines the basic premise that the law should be stable and understandable but destroys confidence in the entire system and betrays those who came to this country in good faith. To apply these rules to those who are already here and working towards their settled status is inherently unfair. The strength of feeling about the issue is obvious, as evidenced by the number of people in the Chamber today. On 17 December last year, more than 800 migrant members of the largest trade union in this country, Unison, attended one of the largest lobbying events in Parliament’s history, engaging with more than 100 MPs.
These people are here legally; we should be making it easier for them to become settled citizens, not more difficult. Our diversity and multiculturalism are what makes our country great. We should protect legal migrants, not only to enable them to better their lives but to better our lives, too, so that everyone who lives in this country and who calls her home can prosper.