Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Will Forster Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
I wish to focus my attention on two new clauses. First, I am calling my new clause 33 Sara’s law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. This comes out of the findings of the recent review conducted by the Children’s Commissioner. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others that have suggested a raft of great changes to the Bill when it comes to improving how we look after children in the UK. The list is never-ending, with so many great contributions from many.
Given what happened to Sara Sharif, we know that the system is not protecting vulnerable children as it should. It failed her, so I am hoping to untie that fundamental knot in the children’s social care system. The sad reality is that the level of support a child receives too often depends not on their needs, but on where they live and the thresholds the council has for stepping in and saving a child from abuse and neglect.
There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for an intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That means children at risk in one council area may receive early help and intervention if a family is in crisis, yet in another they are left without the intervention that could protect them, if not save their life. Every child in this country has in effect been entered into a postcode lottery, and we are gambling with their lives by not attempting to repair that flaw.
We need to look at the devastating case of Sara to understand the consequences of having a system that lacks consistency and clear national standards. I do not think we can put a price on a child’s life and decide to step in only on the basis of resources, but that is how the current system works. It is clear that social services over the years have struggled with deep cuts to funding and services, and the Liberal Democrats and I are not yet confident that the new Government will fully fund local authorities.
Sara was just 10 years old when she was brutally murdered after, sadly, years of torture and slavery at the hands of those who were supposed to love her. She was known to social services, yet the response was not sufficient to protect her. Would clearer national guidance with stronger thresholds for intervention have made a difference? In my opinion, yes. Would automatic referrals such as those proposed in this new clause have ensured that professionals had the opportunity to intervene before it was too late? In my view, yes.
New clause 33 calls for a review of the variation in the support that children in need receive across the country, and critically, it requires the Government to establish national standards for when and how children should receive help. It sets out clear triggers for automatic referral to children’s social care, such as when a primary caregiver enters custody or becomes an in-patient for mental healthcare, or when a child is arrested. There are moments of profound instability for a child in such cases, yet without clear national standards and a proactive approach, too many slip through the cracks.
My constituent Sara slipped through the cracks. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister if he would call for an inquiry into the failings of the state surrounding the death of Sara, he said the Government would look into it, but we are still waiting for him to update the House. The proposed changes would set expectations about how frequently a child’s situation should be reviewed. Cases like Sara’s remind us that it is not enough to assess a child once and then step away; their needs must be updated and reviewed regularly. The risks can escalate quickly. There are warning signs and if regular checks are not in place, intervention comes too late with morbid consequences.
New clause 33 is about accountability, consistency and, most importantly, protection. We cannot continue to accept a system where a child’s safety depends on geography and resource rather than need. I think MPs from across the House, particularly Government Members, have a moral duty to protect vulnerable children and there are so many children out there who are still in danger. I hope new clause 33 is accepted. If it is not, I hope the Government will consider it in the other place.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to new clause 8, which has been referred to, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). It ensures that corporal punishment cannot be used as a defence in court if it is being used to hide grievous harm to a child. It is not about preventing parents from reasonably reprimanding their children; it is about closing a legal loophole that abusers have regularly used or attempted to use to evade justice. We saw it in the case of Sara, whose father Urfan sought to use such a defence to avoid accountability for the terrible suffering tantamount to torture—that is what the judge said—that he inflicted. No child should endure such brutality. No perpetrator should be able to hide behind awful outdated legal justifications.
We should standardise child protection in this country and close the loopholes that currently exist that abusers can exploit. The Bill, if correctly amended, gives us the chance to do that. Let us take that opportunity and protect vulnerable children.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)
Will Forster ExcerptsThursday 13th March 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
Dame Angela Eagle
Government amendments 23 and 24 add to the existing provision at clause 55(4):
“His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions…to extend…to the Isle of Man.”
Certain provisions are, as appropriate, excluded from extension. The amendments make the same provision to extend provisions by Order in Council to the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey. That follows the Government receiving confirmation from the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey that they wish for a permissive extent clause to be included in the Bill. I am grateful for the engagement of officials and the consideration by respective legislative assemblies on these matters. Confirmation from the Isle of Man has been received before the introduction of the Bill, hence provision already being made at introduction.
Government amendment 21 amends the list of provisions excluded from extension by Order in Council with the effect that clause 24, which amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, may not be extended. That is on the basis that that Act does not have an equivalent permissive extent clause, and any extension would therefore not be required or appropriate. That is a little tweak to the Bill.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am surprised to be raising this issue and that I do not immediately know the answer. The Minister has raised issues with Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, but that poses the question: what about our other overseas territories and areas such as the Falklands? The Government clearly considered the impact of our complicated relations with some places when drafting the Bill, but what about the others? Have the Government considered all those issues?
Dame Angela Eagle
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly have considered those issues. The tweak with the Isle of Man relates to a technicality that was discovered after the Bill was drafted. The two other amendments, which extend certain provisions to the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey respectively, were added after work was done between our Parliament and those legislatures to ensure that they were happy for that extension and wanted a permissive extension clause to be added. That is what the amendments do.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Chris Murray
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I have listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. We need to go back to the evidence we heard from the researcher from the Migration Observatory who I keep quoting. He said that demand for channel crossings is essentially “inelastic”. The hon. Gentleman is predicating his argument on tackling the demand side of the equation. We have been told by the experts that policy will have only a limited impact on the demand, and that is particularly salient when we think about safe routes.
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; we already have safe routes in this country. We have the Afghan scheme, but because that is not available to everyone from Afghanistan, some of those who are not eligible come across on unsafe routes. Although the Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes are not specifically refugee schemes —they are analogous, I accept that point—they are open to a much broader cohort of people. There are some 254,000 Ukrainians and 120,000 Hong Kongers in the UK right now. Those figures are off the top of my head; I am ready to be corrected. It is because of the comprehensiveness of that safe route that we see such high numbers in the declines in the channel.
If we followed the hon. Gentleman’s advice, we would fall into the same logical trap as the Conservatives did with the Rwanda scheme. With Rwanda, the so-called message to the migrants was, “Don’t get on a boat—there’s a 1% chance that you’ll be sent to Rwanda.” First, it was not credible. Secondly, it clearly had no impact on people’s decision making. The hon. Gentleman is proposing that we say, “Don’t get on a boat—there’s a 1% chance that you can come in on a safe route.” I would argue that that would have the same impact on people crossing the channel.
The only way we could have a safe routes phenomenon would be to open them to a select group of people from a select few countries. That would basically be deciding who we thought was the most deserving and who was not, which is not how the refugee system should work. People’s cases should be judged on their merits and on individual circumstances. People can come from ostensibly safe countries but face things such as LGBT discrimination. People could be from a country at war but ineligible because they are one of the perpetrators of that war. We need to judge people on their cases.
Finally, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said that safe routes are the only way to stop people getting on boats and freezing in the channel. Let us be really clear: that is the whole purpose of the Bill. However, the channel crossings are a new phenomenon. They were not happening five or 10 years ago, when we did not have safe routes either. The way to tackle people getting on those boats is by tackling the supply of boats and ways to cross the channel by tackling the gangs. Safe routes may have other values, but not for the purposes of stopping channel crossings.
Mr Forster
I am happy to support new clause 1—in fact, I enthusiastically support it. The challenge of speaking after the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that most of the things worth saying have already been said. In the evidence session I highlighted that safe and legal routes are a key part of us tackling the problem. The Ukrainian scheme is a clear example of success, as is the Hong Kong scheme, yet this Government, like the last one, seem reluctant to go down that route.
Tom Hayes
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh was just saying, that we listen to the refugee voice and think more broadly about what asylum seekers and refugees actually want?
In a previous life, I worked for an international development charity where I led UK campaigning on safe and legal routes. In so doing I took away a major learning, which is that the UK cannot be overwhelmingly the country that receives refugees and asylum seekers via safe and legal routes. That is in part because the UK alone cannot be asked to shoulder such a large responsibility, but also because many asylum seekers and refugees wish to return home and therefore want to be located in a safe country that is nearer to their home country. Is it not right that we think about this in a broader and international sense, rather than assuming that the UK has to always be the country that shoulders the responsibility, when there are other ways that we can support?
Mr Forster
I have some sympathy for what the hon. Member says. We talked about listening to the refugee charities. One of the notes that I made of our evidence session is that they criticised the Bill as only being half the story—saying that it tackles the supply but not the demand. They said that we needed an integrated approach, and to them this Bill was not that; it was a blunt instrument. They were sympathetic to some of the Bill, but they said that it will not fully solve the things that we want to solve.
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point that it might not be a full solution if the UK is the only country to agree safe and legal routes; but we made an agreement with Europe agreed about the Ukrainians. The hon. Member could have tried to amend the new clauses to say that the Government should be working with international partners to introduce safe and legal routes, but it seems that the Government want to dismiss any discussion of safe and legal routes whatsoever, even if working with partners.
Tom Hayes
Is it not the case that the Government do not think that primary legislation is the way to secure international negotiation about safe and legal routes? Actually, those conversations will be happening with the Government and partners. In fact, one of the highlights of having a new Government is a reset of our relationship with the European Union, which—in time, once it matures and restores—can help in negotiations for better routes for humanitarian assistance and support. Primary legislation is not needed for everything.
Mr Forster
I would really like to hear the Minister confirm that the Government are going to work with international partners to encourage a co-ordinated programme on safe and legal routes. One option, I would hope, is to agree to the new clause, but if the Government will not agree with this version, will they agree to consult on how to introduce safe and legal routes with partners? I am trying to be as moderate and practical as possible. A lot of requests from MPs do not require immediate action, but they do require the Government to consult. Is that something that the Minister would consider?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for making a compelling argument around the balance between our decency and humanity and not creating a pull factor that will cause more risk. I draw the Committee’s attention to our work as a Government with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has resettled individuals from Ethiopia, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Combined with the other resettlement routes that we have in place, such as family reunion, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes, we have resettled over half a million individuals since 2015—I do not know the exact stats. There are ways to come here safely for people who need it.
When it comes to illegal migration, it is important that we take out the smuggling gangs. The Bill will help us do that with disruptive measures so we can get there first. This counter-terror approach is the right way.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)
Will Forster ExcerptsThursday 13th March 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to put on record again the importance of the rule of law. This new clause would essentially allow someone rights when they have entered the country illegally. The rule of law and compliance with the law are fundamental within our system, so I cannot accept the premise that acting illegally should be waived or permitted. We are a country of fairness and there has to be fairness and equality under the law. This provision flies in the face of that. If we make an exception here, no matter how desperate the situation, we set a dangerous precedent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, it is a privilege to have British citizenship, and so many people abide by the law. The system proposed by the new clause for those trying to enter the country via illegal routes fundamentally undermines that. We have to be incredibly careful in how we proceed with these things; if something is illegal, the clue is really in the name.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am happy to support the new clause tabled by my friend the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I will also speak to new clause 13, which does essentially the same thing. This issue is about fairness and reasonableness. Ensuring that effectively no refugee or asylum seeker can get citizenship is not reasonable. Refugees will forever become second-class citizens if we allow that to go ahead. I am concerned that that would deepen divisions within society by disenfranchising our newest constituents and residents. The refugees I have spoken to in my constituency of Woking are so proud when they get citizenship, and it encourages integration. Banning them from citizenship, which is what current guidance amounts to, is wrong. I am happy to support both new clauses.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
To quote my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), British citizenship is—or at least should be—
“a privilege to be earned not an automatic right.”
Citizenship should be available only to those who have made both a commitment and a contribution to the United Kingdom. For example, it should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost the public purse more than they contribute to it. It should also be a fundamental principle of our system that those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should never be able to become British citizens. To state something so obvious that it sounds almost silly, those who have come to this country illegally have broken the law. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are proposing that we ignore that fact.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northampton- shire just said, how can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? It seems to me outrageous, unfair and completely against what we understand to be the wishes of the public to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has broken the law when it comes to determining their character and thus whether they should become a fellow citizen of this great country.
Separately, the Conservatives feel that the timeframe the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire suggests in new clause 5 is far too short. In line with our party’s wider policy, we feel that five years is not enough time to qualify a person for indefinite leave to remain. Immigration, as we are all well aware, was at well over 1 million people a year in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and net migration was at, or is expected to be, at least 850,000 people for each of those years. If we accept that the immigration policy of the past few years was a mistake, we should make every effort to reverse the long-term consequences. That is why the Conservative party is advocating that the qualifying period for ILR should be extended to 10 years, rather than the five years in the new clause.
Finally, I return to my earlier point about Scotland, the Scottish National party and the proof of its compassion as compared with its words. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire shook his head when I was speaking about the number of asylum seekers and where they are located. The latest data released on that is for December 2024. As I read it, in Scotland, there are 1,421 asylum seekers in hotels, compared with 36,658 in the rest of the country, and 4,262 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation, compared with 61,445 across the rest of Britain.
I appreciate that that is challenging mental maths, so I will tell hon. Members that that means that Scotland houses only 5% of the asylum seekers currently accommodated by the state in this country. Scotland is underweight relative to population and dramatically underweight relative to size. Given everything that the hon. Gentleman has said that he and his party stand for, would we not expect the opposite to be true—that Scotland would be pulling its weight more, rather than less?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 9—Participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must provide adequate resources to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enhancing their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations.
(2) The resources provided under subsection (1) must include technology for conducting improved surveillance on, and detection of, smuggling networks.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘law enforcement agencies’ include—
(a) the National Crime Agency
(b) police forces in England and Wales; and
(c) the British Transport Police.”
This new clause would require the Government to allocate adequate resources to law enforcement agencies to enhance their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, including through technological tools for better surveillance and detection of smuggling networks.
New clause 10—Requirement to produce an annual report on cooperation with Europol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament an annual report on cooperation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol.
(2) A further report must be published and laid before Parliament at least once per year.
(3) An annual report under this section must include—
(a) actions taken during the previous year to cooperate with Europol;
(b) progress in reducing people smuggling and human trafficking; and
(c) planned activities for improving future cooperation with Europol.”
This new clause would require the Government to provide an annual report to Parliament detailing the UK’s efforts to cooperate with Europol, its progress in reducing levels of people smuggling and human trafficking, and its plans to improve future cooperation.
Mr Forster
I will be relatively brief. The three new clauses concern Europol, and the Liberal Democrats and I think that they are vital to ensuring that the Bill goes further and is more effective. Cross-border co-operation is key to reducing small boat crossings—something that the former Government made it harder for our country to do. However, the Bill misses the opportunity to better tackle them. We believe that this Government should strive for greater cross-border co-operation, including by working with Europol. Including that as part of the Bill seems a sensible step.
Matt Vickers
Liberal Democrat new clauses 8, 9 and 10 attempt to establish a joint taskforce with Europol and provide annual reports to Parliament to reduce levels of people smuggling and human trafficking.
Most Governments accept that international partnerships and cross-border co-operation have a role to play in solving the problem, but the new clauses could restrict the Government’s ability to negotiate in this regard while creating a cost by way of the need to provide further adequate resources to enhance that partnership and participation. They would also impose a responsibility to create yet another report. The National Crime Agency has said that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. The Australians have done it, but that was with a deportation scheme. Why do hon. Members not think that a strong deterrent—that people who arrive in this country illegally will not be able to stay—would not be more effective in stopping people smuggling?
I realise that the Lib Dems seem to think that Europe has the answer to all the world’s problems, but surely even they must appreciate the need for a deterrent, rather than an incentive. In fact, as Europe reconsiders its approach to immigration by looking at what it can do to deter illegal entries, it is even more important that we do the same, rather than becoming the soft touch of Europe.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
I hope you, too, enjoyed a long and languid lunch, Dame Siobhain, after the way in which we overshot this morning’s sitting. This group of new clauses introduces requirements, in primary legislation, for the Secretary of State to put in place arrangements for closer co-operation with Europol, which includes seeking the establishment of a joint task force, providing adequate resources for participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations and the publication of an annual report.
Very few of us would quibble with what I suspect is the intended output of such clauses, but I would quibble with the means by which the hon. Member for Woking has decided to try to bring it about. He is putting things into a piece of primary legislation, which cannot be easily changed, moved or shifted about, and that creates more issues and less flexibility than what I am sure he is seeking to achieve.
I suspect that, with these clauses, the hon. Gentleman is using the Bill as a hook on which to hang requirements on the Secretary of State, so as to have a debate about how the Government will co-operate with international law enforcement agencies. I do not think he is really saying that we should be doing that in the quite rigid way that his new clauses suggest. I reassure him that we are doing what I think he wants us to do according to the new clauses, but in a much more flexible way that can be changed very quickly because it is not stuck in a piece of primary legislation. I think we also discussed it on day one in Committee.
The UK has a strong relationship with Europol, including significant permanent presence in the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. UK law enforcement agencies already collaborate with international partners through Europol-supported operations. The allocation of resources to that participation is an operational decision for law enforcement agencies, and certainly not one that should be included in primary legislation. There is regular interaction on both operational and strategic matters between Europol, this Government and the Home Office, including at the most senior levels.
As well as working with Europol, the Home Office will continue to work with a range of international bodies—including Frontex and operational work with many of the law enforcement agencies in European countries and beyond, for example—to deliver the Government’s border security objectives. That is because we recognise that border security is not just about one’s own border: quite often weaknesses in others’ borders along the traveller and migratory routes cause weaknesses for us. Indeed, sometimes visa regimes in other countries can cause problems in the UK. For example, the sudden appearance on small boats last year of large numbers of Vietnamese, who clearly had not walked from Vietnam, was caused by changes that had happened to visa requirements in other countries. Those things are interrelated. Fighting organised immigration crime is an interrelated operational, diplomatic and political matter, on which this Government are doing a great deal of work to try to strengthen it and make it more effective.
The UK regularly participates in operational taskforces with EU partners, and it is inappropriate to place on the face of a piece of legislation a statutory requirement to seek to establish a joint taskforce. That would force us to have a joint taskforce, whether or not we wanted one and whether or not it would do any good, thereby, in that case, diverting precious resources where they are not operationally needed.
I hope the hon. Member for Woking understands the points that I am making. The Border Security Commander will provide an annual report to Parliament, setting out their views on the performance of the border security system as it develops. Europol is an individual agency, among many with which UK law enforcement collaborates to achieve the Border Security Commander’s objective. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my comments on his three new clauses in the spirit in which they are intended: we know what he means, but we think that we have a better way of bringing it about in a far more flexible way than through his new clauses. If he accepts that argument, I certainly hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Mr Forster
I do not quite get the reasoning that says that we do not need the amendment in order to work with Europol because we already work with Europol. The amendment is about empowering Parliament and making the Executive act, which is what we are keen to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.
(2) Employment undertaken pursuant to subsection (1) is subject to the following restrictions—
(a) employment may only be taken up in a post which is, at the time an offer of employment is accepted, included in Appendix Immigration Salary List;
(b) there must be no work in a self-employed capacity; and
(c) there must be no engagement in setting up a business.”—(Mr Forster.)
This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Forster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is about allowing asylum seekers to work. It is commonly raised, by a lot of people, that this country discourages asylum seekers from working. It seems that it is viewed as being tough on them, but what it does is encourage an unacceptable welfare bill. We have a lot of research on it from the Lift the Ban coalition. Several years ago, it said that, actually, the fiscal gains from such a change would be significant. Originally it said that the gains would be £97.8 million a year, but that figure was later revised up to £108.8 million. I think the new clause would encourage work, lower the benefits bill for the taxpayer and ensure better integration.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is causing that huge bill is not the fact that people cannot work, but that they are waiting for a decision? They are stuck in backlog, but if they got a decision that would obviate this discussion completely.
Mr Forster
I do agree with that. The system was broken by the previous Government; that is one of the very few things that the hon. Member and I completely agree on. We know that the system is broken, but we leave people stuck in limbo. Until the system has been fixed, let us enable them to work and use their skills to benefit our constituencies. If there were a quick decision in a matter of weeks, there would be no need for the new clause. But we know that is not going to happen. That has consistently failed to be implemented. In the meantime, we should let and encourage asylum seekers to work, for their benefit, the benefit of their families and the benefit of our constituents.
Dame Angela Eagle
New clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking, is about giving asylum seekers permission to work in the UK. The hon. Gentleman said that that would cut welfare bills, but he should be clear that those who are awaiting asylum decisions do not have direct recourse to social security, although we do have to spend money ensuring that they are not destitute while their asylum claims are processed.
Clearly, as hon. Friends on the Committee have pointed out, the answer to some of these issues is to recreate a fast, fair and efficient system of dealing with people’s asylum claims, rather than to have backlogs, particularly regarding appeals, which leave people languishing for months—and sometimes well over a year—awaiting asylum decisions.
To that end, it did not help that the Illegal Migration Act was so dysfunctional that it actually banned us from dealing with people’s asylum claims, and meant that this Government inherited a huge backlog of people—a perma-backlog, as I think we have heard during our debates on this Bill.
Clearing through that backlog and dealing with the resultant appeals for those who fail is the Government’s task at the moment, but, looking past the immediate task, my view is that the way to deal with this issue is to recreate a fast, fair and efficient asylum system. That is the first point that I want to make in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 11.
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, our current policy allows asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months and the delay was no fault of their own, so there is already capacity to work for those who have been particularly delayed. Those permitted to work in that context are restricted to jobs on the immigration salary list, which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee—it is usually to do with shortages and the need in the economy at the time.
The policy is designed to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others who are lawfully resident. Lawful residence is a very important part of the system. That includes, of course, those who have been granted refugee status, who are given full access to the UK labour market. That is in line with those seeking to work in the UK under the points-based system. We consider it crucial to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules and come here legally. The UK’s wider immigration policy would be totally undermined if individuals could bypass the work visa rules by lodging asylum claims in the UK. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that context, because it is very important.
Unrestricted access to employment opportunities could act as an incentive for more migrants to come here irregularly on small boats or by whatever means, clandestinely—illegally, without permission to be here—rather than claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Although I would be the first to admit that pull factors are complex, we cannot ignore that the perception of access to the UK labour market is among the reasons why people take dangerous journeys to the UK. Therefore, opening up the UK labour market to anyone who happens to arrive on the shores, no matter how they arrived, would not help us deal with that issue, and would create incentives for more and more people to chance their arm and come here in dangerous ways.
In addition, removing restrictions to work for asylum seekers could increase the number of unfounded claims for asylum, reducing our capacity to take decision quickly and support genuine refugees. I acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, but the chaos we inherited from the Conservative party has led to the backlogs that we are trying to deal with at the moment.
We have been clear that individuals who wish to come to the UK must go through safe and legal routes by applying for the visas that are available. Where the reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route so they can be checked and agreed in the usual lawful way—either the points-based system, or reuniting under refugee family or reunion rules. Allowing those who have come here in an irregular fashion to work, as if there were no difference between applying for a legal visa and getting proper permission to come before arriving, would undermine the entire basis of the rules and would create many incentives that no one on this Committee would like to see.
Given that explanation and the fact that we do allow asylum seekers to work when there is a delay of 12 months or more, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.
Mr Forster
I will start with some examples of best practice from elsewhere. In Australia, most asylum seekers have the right to work straight away, even though it is temporary. In Canada, they can apply for a work permit while their asylum application is being processed. The US allows asylum seekers to work after around six months. From June next year, the EU will require member states to let asylum seekers work after nine months. Some go further—Sweden allow them to work straight away. With a one-year restriction, we are out of kilter with the rest of the western world. That is why the new clause has been tabled. I would appreciate the Minister taking away the question about the last time we reviewed the one-year limit and the restrictions on it. How often is it reviewed? An answer to that would be useful.
Tom Hayes
I was listening carefully and had a lightbulb moment. Perhaps the Conservatives figured out what a deterrent was—it was crashing the economy and putting our country into such difficulty that it obliterated the pull factor. That might be a cruel thing to say. Does the hon. Member agree that we heard in evidence that there are pull factors in the UK in terms of our language, our diaspora and quality of life, and other countries may not have those same factors? If we agree to the new clause and make it easier for people who cross the channel illegally to work here, people may be even more incentivised to come here compared with other countries.
Mr Forster
I am happy to have given the hon. Member the chance to mention Liz Truss and attack the Conservative economic record. I take the point. If Government Members like the spirit of the new clause but do not like the detail, why have they not suggested that it should apply only to existing asylum seekers caught up in the backlog rather than new asylum seekers? I have not made that distinction. You are implying that there should be that distinction; you are not implying that, Dame Siobhain, obviously—the Government are implying that. I have not used “yous” for a while; I am afraid I did that time.
We will talk about this in a debate on a new clause that is still to come. The Government have identified that they need to improve the system. I completely agree. They have inherited a completely broken system. A further new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats would put a legislative framework around the system, to try to improve it. If the Government are so concerned about allowing asylum seekers to work, I hope they will support that new clause.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”—(Mr Forster.)
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers’ minimum wage on levels of net migration.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Forster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a minor new clause that would require the publication of a report on the impact of implementing the carers minimum wage on the level of net migration. As MPs, we want to understand the data and facts to enable us to scrutinise the Government. Without the data, we cannot do our job properly—it is as simple as that.
Matt Vickers
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 14 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers minimum wage on levels of net migration. It requires such publication within 12 months of the passing of the Act.
What outcome are hon. Members seeking to achieve with the new clause? What is the proposed minimum wage for carers that the Liberal Democrats would impose? Our care workers deserve fair pay. We are seeing the impact of the national insurance rise on the care sector and the organisations operating therein, who are now struggling to sustain themselves and deliver good jobs and good pay to the care workers they employ. What assessment has been done of the costs of such a minimum wage and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that this was fully funded?
Seema Malhotra
I am pleased to speak on new clause 14. It is unclear whether its intention is to commission a review of the impact of setting a minimum wage for new entrants or for settled workers in the care sector. I interpreted that its effect would be the Government commissioning a review into implementing a national minimum wage for workers in the social care sector. It is unclear whether it would apply to international workers or the whole labour market.
It is also unclear—I think this was the shadow Minister’s point—what the minimum wage for carers being referred to is; there are no sector-based minimum wage standards. The national living wage is currently £11.44 for people aged 21 or over. It is rising to £12.21 in April. International workers on a health and care visa are currently required to be paid £11.90.
I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report before Parliament given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis, which will show the impact of changes in inwards migration. It will not be possible for that data to show the effect of this issue on net migration, as the figures will depend on other factors such as the number of people who choose to leave the UK, which might not be a result of care worker minimum wage requirements. It is also not clear whether the report would have to look at settled workers and other workers in the labour market as well as those who are on health and care visas.
We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of international care workers recruited for just over a year, and that is because employers have been unable to demonstrate that they have genuine vacancies that would guarantee sufficient hours to meet salary requirements. The most recently published data and statistics show that in the year ending December 2024, the number of international care workers reduced by 91%. The work that the Home Office is doing with the Department of Health and Social Care is increasing the role of regional hubs, with £16 million going into them. Regional hubs play an important role in supporting workers who may have left an employer or lost a licence to find other employment. That reduces the dependency on recruiting from abroad because we are already using those who are here on those visas and wish to work, alongside continuing to recruit home-grown talent.
Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not fully aware that we are introducing the first fair pay agreement to the adult social care sector, so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. The Government will engage all those who draw upon care, as well as those who provide care. We will also consult local authorities, unions and others from across the sector. Fair pay agreements will empower worker representatives, employers and others to negotiate pay, and terms and conditions, in a responsible manner. Crucially, they will help to address the long-standing issues with sustainability of resource, recruitment and retention that we all know exist in the care sector. That will address the workforce crisis in that extremely important sector and so support the delivery of high-quality care. Fair pay agreements are an important first step towards a national care service.
I hope that clarifies the Government’s position and why it will not be necessary to lay a report before Parliament—and that certainly should not be required under this legislation, which is about stopping criminal gangs in their awful trade. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause and engage in this debate in other ways.
Mr Forster
I am happy to take the Minister up on that suggestion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
A three-month service standard for asylum casework
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, implement a three-month service standard for asylum casework.
(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”—(Mr Forster.)
This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Forster
I beg to move, That the cause be read a Second time.
I highlighted this proposed new clause in a previous speech. The clause would ensure a three-month service standard for asylum casework, so that the Government can tackle the backlogs that they inherited. It would require UK Visas and Immigration to introduce that three-month service standard for decisions on asylum claims, to benefit both asylum seekers and the British taxpayer. The service standard
“must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”
That would help the Government as they rectify the mess they inherited. If the Government suggest that the period I have chosen—three months—should be six months, I am happy to talk about that. I think that setting a stretch target—the Government are setting several, such as the 1.5 million homes target—is appropriate.
Matt Vickers
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 15 would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases, meaning that
“98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”
We agree with the principle that asylum applications should be determined as swiftly as possible, but the raft of new clauses proposed by the Liberal Democrats, including the unfunded proposals to create additional “safe and legal routes”, would surely only increase the queue, and the time required to make initial decisions on claims. The Liberal Democrats do not appear to have any desire to remove those who have entered this country illegally. We can reduce decision times by deterring people, rather than inducing them to enter the country illegally. Is the proposed new clause an attempt to speed up the granting of citizenship, as per Liberal Democrat proposed new clause 13, rather than speeding up decisions so that we can deport those who have entered this country illegally?
Dame Angela Eagle
The new clause—the hon. Member for Woking spoke about it, although I am not sure whether he tabled it—would introduce a new service standard to ensure that the majority of initial decisions on asylum claims are made within three months of a claim being lodged. It is good to make initial decisions, but if we are looking at asylum claims overall, and getting people through them in a fast, fair and efficient way, we also have to think about appeals, and think about such claims from the very start to the very end, rather than just the Home Office part. That is an important thing to consider. The new clause deals with only the first part of that. If one is looking at a system-wide approach, one has to look from the beginning to the end, rather than just at the initial decision in the Home Office.
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause and stress that we are in absolute agreement that it is important that our asylum process is fair, efficient, as fast as possible, consistent with fairness, and robust. We are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay. Delays are not always our fault, but they sometimes have been in the past. We are committed to ensuring that those who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible so that they can start to integrate, rebuild their lives and contribute to our society in the way we all want to see happen. As such, I assure him that we are already taking important steps to achieve that.
The Government restarted processing thousands of asylum claims that were stuck in the perma-backlog that we inherited when we came into office, and we are clearing those at pace, making initial asylum decisions. We are also delivering a major uplift in removals when people fail and have no right to be in the UK; there were 19,000 removals between when we came into office on 4 July last year and the end of January.
The Government continue to restore order to the immigration system so that every part—border security, case processing, appeals and returns—operates fairly and swiftly. By transforming the asylum system, we will clear the backlog of claims and appeals, and that work is ongoing. We have taken action to speed up asylum processing while maintaining the integrity of the system, including simplifying guidance, streamlining processes, developing existing and new technology to build on improvements such as digital interviewing, and moving away from a paper-based system.
We have also changed the law to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which created the perma-backlog that we had to deal with when we came into Government. That allows decision makers to decide asylum claims from individuals who have arrived in the UK from 7 March 2023, with claims to be considered against the existing legislative regime under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which caused much of the previous delay.
I hope that the hon. Member for Woking agrees that the work that we have put in place is starting to have a real impact. I have considerable sympathy with what he is saying in the new clause, but I hope that we will be able to get to a fast, fair and efficient system with the reforms that we are making now, rather than with the new clause.
Mr Forster
An Opposition Member and a Minister are not normally meant to agree this much, but I think we do. We probably will not vote the same way, but we generally agree. Last year, there was an asylum seeker who had waited 16 years for a decision on their claim. At the same time, there were 19 people waiting 10 years or more for a decision. That is how broken the system is, and I do not envy the Minister her job. The new clause would support the Government’s work, and I hope that Members will support it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Forster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am happy to introduce new clause 16, which involves an exemption for NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exempt the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees.
Matt Vickers
Liberal Democrat new clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to apply an exception to the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees. Do the Liberal Democrats not believe that we should be recruiting British workers to work in the NHS before we look to recruit overseas workers? Do the Liberal Democrats understand that this new clause could result in the NHS recruiting more people from overseas, rather than from our domestic population, further driving up those numbers? What assessment has been done of the costs of such a scheme, and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that it was fully funded?
Mr Forster
I will start with what I describe as the brass neck of the Conservatives for breaking the NHS, the immigration system and the social care system, and then criticising my proposal for tackling those problems. I find that extraordinary. We should reduce our reliance on foreign labour to support the workforce in the UK, including the NHS, but until we have done that, I do not believe we should make the NHS pay the immigration surcharge. That is the purpose of the new clause, and I hope some Members will support me.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Victims of slavery or human trafficking: protection from immigration offences—
“(1) The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52 (Duty to notify Secretary of State about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking), after subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to ensure that notification under this section does not include the supply of information to relevant persons or authorities that might indicate that—
(a) the victim has committed an offence under sections 24 to 26 of the Immigration Act, or
(b) the victim might otherwise meet the requirements for removal from the United Kingdom or for investigation pending removal.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “relevant persons or authorities” include—
(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department;
(b) an immigration officer;
(c) a customs official;
(d) a law enforcement officer;
(e) the Director of Border Revenue;
(f) the Border Security Commander;
(g) a UK authorised person; and
(h) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.’”
This new clause would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.
Mr Forster
We need to understand the impact of our immigration laws on victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates into UK law the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and to report compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, in determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities or other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.
I hope that the new clauses are taken in the spirit they are intended. If they fail—based on my experience in the last hour, I think they might—I hope that Ministers and their officials will work with their teams on our immigration laws to make sure that no vulnerable person who has been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery falls through the cracks.
Matt Vickers
Liberal Democrat new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings into UK law, and to report on compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.
We have seen the abuse of human rights legislation by criminals who want to remain in the UK, such as an Albanian criminal who was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The judge in the case allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights. Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often that is frustrated by spurious legal claims. The human right of our own citizens to be protected from the criminals is routinely ignored. How do the Liberal Democrats plan to stop the abuse of the clauses by people who know that their asylum claim is likely to be rejected, for example?
Dame Angela Eagle
I think everybody in this Committee—I am being very generous—thinks that it is important to protect the victims of modern slavery, and we have legislation in our country to try to ensure that that happens. We also signed the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and this country complies with the obligations under it.
The intention behind new clause 18 is to incorporate the convention into UK law, but UK compliance is already achieved by a combination of measures in domestic legislation, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Nationality and Borders Act, the criminal justice system and the processes set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for identifying and supporting victims of slavery and trafficking. Implementation and compliance with those obligations does not require full incorporation into UK law, and therefore the amendment is not required. It will not really add a lot.
On new clause 19, the Modern Slavery Act provides certain named public bodies in England and Wales with a statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State when that body has reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking. The information provided for that notification enables the UK to fulfil its obligations to identify and support victims of slavery and trafficking. The duty to notify is discharged for adults by making a referral into the national referral mechanism where the adult consents to enter the mechanism, or by completing an anonymous entry to that mechanism on the digital system where the adult does not consent. The information provided via the digital system is used to build a better picture of modern slavery in England and Wales and helps to improve the law enforcement response, so it is important that that information is collected.
The information does not include that which identifies the person, either by itself or in combination with other information, unless the person consents to the inclusion of the information. So that information can be put in there anonymously. Child victims do not need to consent to enter the national referral mechanism. As such, the national referral mechanism discharges the duty to notify.
If a person is identified in the national referral mechanism as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are eligible for a recovery period during which they are protected from removal from the UK if they are a foreign national and are eligible for support, unless they are disqualified on the grounds of public order or bad faith. Bad faith refers to lying about one’s circumstances, and public order refers to an individual who could be a danger to society. We have had some discussion about that with respect to section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Government have decided to retain but have not yet commenced. I think we also discussed section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act.
When we came into government, the national referral mechanism decision-making process was in disarray, with a huge backlog. We ensured that 200 more caseworkers were allocated to deal with the backlog, and there has been a great deal of very good progress in getting that backlog down. The Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is particularly concentrating on getting the national referral mechanism back on track as part of the battle against modern slavery.
With those responses, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the new clause.
Mr Forster
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 20
Humanitarian travel permit
“(1) On an application by a person (‘P’) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—
(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;
(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and
(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—
(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted;
(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;
(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and
(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.
(4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.
(5) The requirements are—
(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and
(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).
(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).
(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.
(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘appropriate decision making’ means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);
(b) ‘entry clearance’ has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;
(c) ‘protection claim’, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—
(i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (‘the Refugee Convention’);
(ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or
(iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (‘the European Convention on Human Rights’);
(d) ‘persecution’ is defined in accordance the Refugee Convention; and
(e) ‘serious harm’ means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”—(Mr Forster.)
This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Forster
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a comprehensive new clause, and I am tempted to be brief in my introduction to it. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would like to suggest the creation of a humanitarian travel permit to counter the gangs that the Government are seeking to attack and undermine through the Bill. We need to support those who genuinely need to travel here safely, and this new clause is an appropriate way forward. As I say, it is long and comprehensive. Hon. Members might want to ask questions about it, or they might want to take it apart, but it is a genuine suggestion about how we undermine the gangs and encourage people to come here safely.
Matt Vickers
The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 20, which would introduce a so-called humanitarian travel permit. The Conservatives have previously drawn up schemes such as Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine family scheme for families seeking refuge from the war. We do not need a specific permit for people across the world to use to come to the UK, so we do not support the measure.
Mr Forster
The hon. Member for Stockton West highlighted that the scheme proposed by the new clause is not dissimilar to ones that the previous Government introduced for Ukrainians and people from Afghanistan, which I found an interesting comparison. If it is appropriate for some specific countries, why would it not be appropriate to have such a scheme on the legal shelf in case we were to need it, especially as the world is more dangerous than ever before?
Mr Forster
I acknowledge that those schemes try to do that, but I do not think they are working—the exhibit for that is the number of small boats that we see and the number of people fleeing conflict. Those rules do not meet the framework that is currently required in the UK and in the world, hence this new clause. I am mindful of time, so I will be brief: I hope that hon. Members will support this new clause, which would be a good legal tool for attacking the gangs and protecting vulnerable people as they flee their homes in conflict.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Family Visas: Income Requirement
Will Forster Excerpts(2 months, 1 week 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
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by acknowledging the more than 100,000 people who have signed this petition nationally, including almost 200 people in my constituency, and I particularly thank Shannon for starting it. They have come together to call for a fairer and more compassionate approach to family visas. This issue deeply affects families across our country and we must address it with care and urgency.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the immigration system should work for everyone. We want to make sure that it works for our country and for our economy while treating everyone with dignity and respect. That means that the current system must change because, sadly, the previous Conservative Government’s changes to the income requirements for family visas fell far short of that goal.
The decision to raise the minimum income threshold for a sponsoring partner to £29,000 a year and to propose further increases to nearly £39,000 a year has rightly caused widespread fear and anxiety for families. We ought to feel concerned for them and the countless people who have been left feeling uncertain about their futures or forced to make impossible decisions about their lives.
More than 10 hon. Members have spoken in this debate. I have heard that the policy is a tax on love and that it rips families apart, but I have not heard anyone speak in favour of it—I am pleased to say—which shows that the system is broken and needs changing. We must acknowledge the humanity of the situation: those arbitrary thresholds fail to take into account the many families who simply cannot meet them through no fault of their own. They disproportionately affect women, people in lower paid but essential jobs, and those living outside London and the south-east, where wages are often lower.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
We have heard a lot about sector-specific issues, and about regional inequalities and inequalities of race and gender, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an issue for people with disabilities? My constituent is an armed forces veteran who now suffers from PTSD and a range of other disabilities that leave him able to work only part time, which would massively hamper his ability to hit any threshold. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that the system that works for everyone and gives back to the people who have served our country?
Mr Forster
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who highlights that the policy has an impact on disabled and vulnerable veterans. The Government must acknowledge that and take it into account as they change the system to ensure that they support those people. He makes a valid point in support of his constituents.
Given that no one has said that they support the current policy, why did the Conservative Government make that move to cause so much disparity and hurt? Putting the threshold so artificially high prevents British citizens on lower incomes sponsoring their foreign spouse or partner moving to the UK. It does not save money—it hurts our financial system and our economy—but it is there to make them look tough on immigration. Everyone can see through it. Roughly half of UK employees earn less than £29,000 a year, so I am disappointed and surprised that the Conservatives, who often say that they are the party of traditional family values, trashed our family values in this country by introducing this policy and breaking up families.
The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee is now reviewing those financial requirements. Although we welcome the pause on further rises, families need certainty, and they need it now. We need to know that they will not be torn apart by policies that prioritise the system over compassion; we need to protect them. We must ask ourselves what kind of country we want to live in—one that values the bonds of family or one that tears those bonds apart based on arbitrary numbers and a statistical threshold picked out of thin air. Do we follow hard data or do we follow the love that our constituents feel for each other?
The Liberal Democrats are committed to reversing the unfair increases in income thresholds for family visas. Families should not have to live in fear of being separated. They deserve stability and the opportunity to build their lives together in the UK. I urge the Government to act swiftly, to halt any further increases and to ensure that family visa requirements are fair and proportionate. Families matter. No one should have to choose between their loved ones and their home.