Seema Malhotra MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this debate and all Members who have spoken in an incredibly powerful and moving discussion. That includes my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler). I also thank the shadow spokespeople, who made powerful contributions. I will try to refer later in my speech to a number of the points that have been raised, but let me first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for her stories about Professor Chevannes and Paulette Wilson, which, like so many stories told during the debate, were very powerful. I also want to acknowledge Basil Watson’s wonderful sculpture, and the story that it tells to all who come and go through Waterloo station. When my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East spoke about her mother, I think we all recognised a little bit of her mother in all our mothers, and I am sure that her pride in her mother would have been reflected very much in her mother’s pride in her and her contributions. This Sunday marks 77 years since the Empire Windrush arrived at Tilbury. Along with the thousands of others who came to the United Kingdom from the Caribbean and countries across the Commonwealth in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, they became known as the Windrush generation. They and their children and grandchildren have enriched our society in myriad ways, and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. On Windrush Day, we celebrate them and their extraordinary achievements and contribution to our economy, communities, society and culture; but we also acknowledge the appalling and humiliating treatment to which many members of the Windrush generation were subjected owing to the actions of past Governments. Let me say, clearly and without equivocation, that the Home Office Windrush scandal was a travesty that caused untold pain and suffering. There has been much talk about righting the wrongs, but words alone are not enough, and this Government are backing up our promises with action. We promised a reset when we were in opposition, and since the general election we have sought to strengthen engagement with victims, their families, communities and stakeholder organisations. I have regularly met many organisations, including the Windrush National Organisation—I pay tribute to Bishop Desmond Jadoo, and I was honoured to join a very powerful vigil with some of my hon. Friends in April—and Windrush Defenders Legal. From London to Manchester and from Cardiff to Edinburgh, I have heard victims describe how their lives were turned upside down, about the trauma they went through, and about the impact that the scandal is still having on their lives. As we have sought to embed a culture of listening and learning throughout the Department, we have worked to improve training and standards, as well as publishing the report “The Historical Roots of the Windrush Scandal” last September. I am clear about the fact that the lessons we learn should inform our ways of working across Government. In April, the Home Secretary and I were honoured to host the Windrush Cymru Elders for a special screening in the Home Office, with Professor Uzo Iwobi and Race Council Cymru, of the BAFTA-nominated film “Windrush Cymru @ 75”. Last week we were proud to host the first day of the National Windrush Museum’s annual summit, led by Dr Les Johnson and Denize Ledeatte—a powerful summit addressing the theme of “reframing Windrush and justice for a new Britain”. We will very soon announce the appointment of a new independent Windrush commissioner, underlining this Government’s unwavering determination to ensure that the voices of the Windrush generations are heard, their experiences are acknowledged, and proper compensation is delivered. We are committed to improving the Windrush compensation scheme to ensure that those to whom compensation is due receive the support that they deserve quickly. In opposition, we frequently heard that the application process was too complicated, with insufficient support for those wishing to make a claim. The Government are determined to ensure that the victims of the Home Office Windrush scandal are heard, that justice is sped up, and that the compensation scheme is run efficiently and effectively. We have already made changes to the casework processes, reducing waiting times for the allocation of claims from four months to under six weeks. In April, we launched a £1.5 million advocacy support fund to provide dedicated help from trusted community organisations when victims apply for compensation. However, we recognise that there is much more to be done, which is why Ministers are continuing to engage with community groups on improvements to the compensation scheme, and we will ask the Windrush commissioner to recommend any further changes that they believe are required. I want to address two points that were made in the debate. The first is about people who unfortunately passed away after submitting a claim—we are aware of about 64 claimants. In these very difficult circumstances, the teams continue to work closely with their appointed representative, who is usually a member of the family, to ensure that claims continue and are concluded as quickly as possible. We prioritise those claims where we are notified that individuals are suffering from critical or life-limiting illnesses, and officials are reviewing the current exclusion in the rules on compensation for private and occupational pensions. We are working at pace to consider options for how we can compensate for these losses, and working closely with the Government Actuary’s Department to support this critical work. The Windrush story has resonance for us all, and for communities across the country. I am pleased to tell the House that this Government have supported this year’s commemorations through the Windrush Day grant scheme, which is chaired by Paulette Simpson and works with my noble Friend in the other place, the Minister for Faith and Communities. We are funding projects to celebrate and commemorate the Windrush, and to educate people about it. We are funding the National Windrush Museum to collect and preserve precious assets for future generations, and as a great educational resource for schools, researchers and the wider public.

• 16 Jun 2025 · Windrush Day 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and I am very happy to talk about these issues further. She will know that the Migration Museum documents history through some very powerful exhibitions. It is so important that Windrush Day events are happening across the country, with community festivals, live music, workshops, talks, films and so much more, and I am looking forward to marking Windrush Day this weekend—both with the Caribbean & African Health Network in Manchester and at the Big Caribbean Lunch in Brixton, where I hope to join my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) in Windrush Square. I pay tribute to the work of Ros Griffiths and the Friends of Windrush Square, based in my hon. Friend’s constituency. In this debate and those in recent years, we have heard the powerful and vivid accounts of people’s experiences since the 1940s, including on the 75th anniversary, on which His Majesty the King described those who stepped off the Empire Windrush at Tilbury in 1948 as “pioneers”, which is exactly what they were. Through their hard work, sacrifice, togetherness and unbreakable spirit, they endured against a backdrop of racism and discrimination that we know existed at the time. But more than that, they thrived. On the railways, roads and construction sites, in our armed forces, factories and fledgling NHS, and in so many other sectors, they helped Britain get back on its feet. They helped rebuild this country, its infrastructure and our public services. However, Windrush is not merely a prosaic story of service rendered at a time of national need; it is so much more than that. It is a story of a community that became indelibly etched into the very fabric of our social tapestry, and a story of art, music, literature, language and cultural enrichment. Put simply, it is the story of British life being changed for the better. To wrap up, I again thank all Members who have spoken. I also pay tribute to those who have been mentioned in the debate, including Baroness Benjamin and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who, in this House and the other, have arguably done more than any others to advance the Windrush cause and highlight its importance to our national identity. This debate has been a powerful and poignant reminder of the countless ways that this country has been strengthened by the Windrush generation and their descendants, and the enormous debt of gratitude that we owe them. Their contributions span every facet of our society. Put simply, Britain would not be Britain without them, and under this Government, they will always get the respect, thanks and support that they deserve.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Licensing Hours Extensions Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham on promoting a Bill that has been greeted so warmly by the House, and on laying out the case for it so clearly and succinctly today. This is a Government-backed Bill that will cut red tape and claim back valuable parliamentary time while bringing benefits in the form of increased revenues for businesses and reducing burdens on licensing authorities. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who has been working on the Bill; I am speaking in her place, as she is unable to be present. The Bill will make an amendment to the Licensing Act to allow licensing extensions to be made more quickly and simply. Furthermore, it will make it possible to extend licensing hours for significant events at short notice even when Parliament is not sitting. Under section 172 of the Act, the Secretary of State may make an order that relaxes licensing hours in England and Wales for “an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”. Decisions to extend licensing hours in such circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned. The Government will continue to use the power sparingly. Currently, the affirmative parliamentary procedure is mandatory—my hon. Friend made that point effectively—in the making of such an order, meaning that it requires the approval of both Houses before coming into force. The Bill will make a very simple alteration to the Licensing Act so that the negative resolution procedure is used instead, allowing extensions to licensing hours to be processed without using up valuable parliamentary time. There has always been agreement across the House that we should move forward in such circumstances, for the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined: it benefits all our constituents when they can come together on very special occasions and spend time in pubs and restaurants in our communities. Objections may still be made, where applicable, under the negative resolution procedure, so Parliament will still have a role. The negative procedure also has the benefit of allowing licensing hours extensions to be made in the rare event that they are needed during parliamentary recesses or at short notice. Following the affirmative procedure is problematic when an order needs to be made at short notice, such as during a sporting event, when the gap between one of the national teams qualifying for the later stages of the competition and the next match is likely to be only a matter of days. In 2021, an emergency order had to be rushed through Parliament at extremely short notice when the England men’s football team reached the final of Euro 2020. In 2023, when the England women’s team progressed to the world cup final, it was not possible to temporarily extend licensing hours, because the House was in recess. Licensing hours have previously been relaxed for significant royal occasions, such as the platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty the Queen, and for events of significant national importance, such as the recent VE Day 80th anniversary, as well as for major sporting events. Those extensions received cross-party support in both Houses, as was particularly evident during the recent debate on the VE Day extension, which was warmly welcomed by both Houses. Extending licensing hours for such occasions means that communities can come together in collective celebration, businesses can reap the benefit of increased revenue and local authorities can be spared the burden of processing high volumes of single extensions. We can all appreciate the welcome boost that that will bring to our local economies: we estimate that it could be up to £500,000 on each occasion. For businesses, taking advantage of such blanket extensions and remaining open for the additional hours is, of course, optional. The Government will continue to plan ahead for such events as much as we can, not least because it is important to ensure as far as possible that the public can have their say through consultation and that key partners such as the police are engaged and have adequate time to prepare. The Bill is a simple and modest measure that aims to give back valuable parliamentary time and will undoubtedly benefit our businesses, our local authorities and the communities that they serve across England and Wales; it will be for Scotland and Northern Ireland to bring in their own measures. Keeping our pubs open for longer on such occasions will give people the opportunity to join in celebrations and to raise a glass collectively, as a community. The Government therefore fully support the Bill. I hope that it will continue to have a straightforward passage through the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing it.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate, which I welcome, because it is time to restore control over the UK’s immigration system. Coincidently, that is the title of our 76-page White Paper, which is a serious plan, and one that the Conservatives should have thought more about bringing forward when they were in government. Let me reassert the fundamental point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in her opening speech: the Government are picking up the pieces after years of chaos and dysfunction. The Conservatives can talk all they want, but they cannot rewrite history. When it comes to small boats, the worst day, the worst week, the worst month and the worst year all took place on their watch in 2022—after the Rwanda deal had been signed. They gave us record net migration, they gave us record small boat arrivals and they gave us record numbers of asylum hotels, so we will take no lectures from them. It bears repeating that what we inherited was, by every possible measure, a failing system. Net migration had risen to record levels, driven in large part by overseas recruitment, despite the public being assured that it would come down. Order and control utterly vanished from the legal immigration system as net migration has quadrupled in recent years to record highs. That was at the same time as investment in training went down: total investment in training per employee fell by 19% in the decade to 2022. It is this Government, in the spring statement, who announced £625 million to go towards skills training. Those important points were made by hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for talking about this issue. There is a debate to be had about cause and consequence, but we cannot deny that apprenticeships in engineering halved while visas doubled on the Conservatives’ watch. That is a serious issue, which the White Paper is tackling. I urge the Conservative party to engage with the substance of that White Paper and the serious reforms we need to make. The dramatic increase in net migration has had serious and far-reaching implications across a range of areas, from public services and community cohesion to housing stock, the economy and our domestic labour market. Perhaps most damagingly of all, it has badly dented the confidence of our constituents, who want an immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. They want to see opportunity for themselves and for their families. Migration is an important part of our national story—none of us should deny that—because for generations people from all over the world have come to Britain to live, to study and to work, from members of the Windrush generation who helped rebuild our country following the second world war, to the doctors and nurses working in our NHS. Indeed, they enrich our society and culture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) outlined, but recognising the value and contribution of legal migration is not the same as having no controls. For far too long, a persistent and abject failure to exert control has undermined the system, with grave consequences. That is the situation we inherited on legal migration, and we must now have the important debate about why that has been the case and what we must do to bring it down. The picture on illegal migration and border security was no better. Under the Conservatives, small boat crossings grew in number from a few hundred in 2018 to tens of thousands. Hotel use peaked with 56,000 asylum seekers in 400 hotels in the autumn of 2023 when the shadow Home Secretary was at the Home Office.

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and to respond to this debate, which has been held with tremendous respect for each other, for trans people and for the issues that we face in navigating through the situation, particularly after the Supreme Court ruling. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for the way in which she opened the debate and for her extremely powerful speech. Bringing the voices of the trans community into these debates is important indeed. I am speaking of behalf on my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who is unable to be in the House due to a visit abroad. We will discuss the debate and the issues raised, and I am sure she will update the House on some of these matters in due course. I also thank all those who signed the petition and all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I am proud to be a member of the party that introduced the Equality Act 2010, which many colleagues have referred to. It is indeed world-leading legislation, which has reflected our commitment to ensuring that every member of our society is treated with dignity and respect, and afforded the same basic rights as each other. Our commitment to those principles remains resolute, and I am sure that everyone who has participated in the debate can agree that they are at the heart of what we want our society to represent. I will repeat one phrase that really stood out, which is that everyone has a right to be themselves. It is important that we keep in our minds those who, as has been talked about today, are feeling very insecure. While I may not be able to cover all the points, I will do my best to do so. I also want to give assurance that the comments that have been made are on record and have been heard by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned, Labour Governments have a very strong history of promoting LGBT+ rights. From the decriminalisation of homosexuality under Harold Wilson’s Government in 1967 through the repeal of section 28 to the introduction of civil partnerships in the early 2000s, we have consistently led the way in advocating for legal equality and social progress for LGBT+ people. It was our then Labour Government that equalised the age of consent, extended adoption rights to same-sex couples, and introduced legislation aimed at combating discrimination and hate crime in the workplace. We laid the crucial groundwork for marriage equality and elevated LGBT+ issues to the forefront of public and political discourse—a legacy that I know Parliament, as well as colleagues in this House, will take great pride in. The conversation surrounding rights, particularly those related to trans individuals, has sadly become increasingly divided and divisive, as this debate has so importantly highlighted. I think we all agree that it is necessary to approach this debate with honesty, respect and sensitivity to all viewpoints. It is in a similar vein that Lord Hodge, when delivering the Supreme Court judgment that sex means biological sex for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, underscored the importance of not viewing the judgment as a “triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another”. That has been referred to a number of times in this debate. The entrenchment of division and ever-greater polarisation seeks only to move us away from holding the empathetic, meaningful and productive conversations that holistically address the issues that stem from this debate. That is why we have emphasised the importance of balancing all people’s rights, including those of trans people and of women, acknowledging that both groups have real, important and often shared concerns. On matters such as access to single-sex spaces, we understand these issues must be navigated sensitively. The Government’s position embodies a belief that it is both possible and essential to uphold protections for trans individuals while respecting women’s concerns regarding privacy, safety and dignity. Those points were also made very strongly and powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss). It is also important to recognise—I want to underscore this—that nobody should suffer or feel the fear that so many do today. It is so important to recognise how much words matter. We recognise that, for many trans individuals, the current climate is uncertain and it has become, in too many places, hostile. The Government are committed to ensuring that trans individuals are treated with dignity and respect. The statistics on hate crime and sexual assault that have been shared in the debate, and of which we are aware, must be of concern to all. We are committed to equalising all existing strands of hate crime as aggravated offences, to ensure that all LGBT+ people are fiercely protected under the law. Let me be unequivocal: trans individuals deserve the right to live free from discrimination, violence and fear. There is no place for transphobia in our society, just as there is no place for homophobia or biphobia. I understand that the recent Supreme Court ruling in the For Women Scotland case has left many trans women feeling worried and concerned for their safety. I want to stress that there are also, rightly, laws in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment. That was true before the ruling; the Supreme Court ruling has also underlined that fact. As has been referred to in the debate, the independent equalities regulator—the Equality and Human Rights Commission—is working to update its statutory code of practice, which will include advice for duty bearers on how to avoid discriminating against groups with protected characteristics, and it has committed to seeking views from all affected stakeholders. The consultation—

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  That is an important consideration, and I will raise it with my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. Laws remain in place to protect trans people from discrimination and harassment, as the Supreme Court pointed out. It is important to state that protections for gender reassignment under the Equality Act have not been affected. The ruling does not impact how a GRC is issued to change a person’s legal sex for certain purposes, nor does the ruling change its significance. There has been considerable debate on this, so I will make some comments on it, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that this is an ongoing debate. However, as we have heard in this debate, it is important to recognise that trans people deserve the right to get married, to have dignity in death, to access pensions and to live their lives in the same way as anyone else. We have said that we will look at gender recognition reform. Our immediate priority, as laid out in the King’s Speech, is to make sure that we have a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, to strengthen hate crime protections for trans people, and to improve healthcare for trans people. It is also important to recognise that discussions continue with trans organisations and the trans community. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli will continue to have those discussions. Any process that allows people to change something as fundamental as their legal sex must have appropriate and proportionate checks and balances. I have heard the different views today, but it is important for me to say—I do not believe this is new information—that the Government do not support self-identification because, as we set out in our manifesto, we believe in protecting the robustness of the process and its legitimate application. A medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is important in this process. We all recognise the challenges in accessing NHS services, and it is important to say that the Government are committed to ensuring that trans people receive the healthcare and support they need when accessing NHS services. We are all aware of the delays, which have been happening for far too long. NHS England has increased the number of adult gender dysphoria clinics in England from seven to 12, but in the light of the Cass report’s recommendations, NHS England also launched an in-depth review of adult services led by Dr David Levy in August 2024. The review will assess not only the quality, effectiveness, safety and patient experience of each service, but their stability and whether the existing model is still appropriate for the patients they care for. I can also confirm that, as part of our agenda supporting LGBT+ people, the Government will deliver a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are clear that conversion practices are abuse. They do not work, and they can and do inflict deep and lasting harm on victims. The continuation of such acts in our society—a society largely accepting of LGBT+ people—must be challenged. The previous Government failed to act, but this Government will not fail. That is why we committed in the King’s Speech to publish draft legislation for a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices. We are working hard to draft measures that offer protection from these harmful practices, while also respecting the important role that teachers, religious leaders, parents and carers can have in supporting those exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity.

• 7 May 2025 · Access to Venture Capital: Women · Hansard source

  More

  A £250 billion boost could be added to the UK economy if women were given the same opportunity as men to start and scale their business. That is why it is a priority for this Government to increase access to capital for women-led businesses, and to continue to work, as the Chancellor has also outlined, with the Women’s Business Council and the invest in women taskforce, and on supporting the FTSE Women Leaders programme. We have backed the invest in women taskforce, which launched an initial £255 million fund, and there is a £50 million commitment from the British Business Bank to investment via female investors in women-led businesses.

• 7 May 2025 · Access to Venture Capital: Women · Hansard source

  More

  The funding will be available to women-led businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is right that we continue to support the work of the Women’s Business Council and others, and look at all we can do to support women in businesses, and those who are coming forward to start their own enterprises.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to wind up this debate, and to respond to some of the comments that have been made. I remind the shadow Minister that under the last Government the police force was largely decimated in terms of neighbourhood policing teams. The subsequent challenges of rising antisocial behaviour and violent crime resulted in this Government having the safer streets mission as a national priority. The shadow Minister will know that the Home Secretary’s first priority has been to ensure that there is sufficient support for our police, and to deliver on our commitment to have over 13,000 more community support officers on our streets. It is not just the work of the police that makes the difference when tackling knife crime, though. A generation of young people have been left behind by successive Conservative Governments; we see that in school absence figures, in their lack of confidence in themselves and about their futures, and in the rise in mental health issues. We recognise that it is important to tackle and to halve knife crime, and to deal with the issue coherently. That is why alongside the measures to support the police—giving them new powers, ensuring they are back in our communities, and building relationships and confidence with communities, schools and young people as part of a prevention strategy—it is important to put in place more facilities and support for young people, particularly those at risk of crime in our communities. Our youth hubs, which involve cross-Government working, including the Home Office, the Department for Education and other Departments, are going to be an important part of that. Until we can better support young people to resist the traction into knife crime, often because they believe it is a form of defence, we will struggle to turn the tide. We absolutely must do that, in the interests not just of the lives of young people but of our society and community safety. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the shadow Minister. It is also important to mention the work of the violence reduction unit, led by the Mayor of London, but these matters do not apply only to London; the strategies need to be nationwide, so that support in communities and for young people at risk of crime reaches into the heart of wherever it is needed. I also want to assure the shadow Minister that we have worked hard on making sure that the definition of ninja sword in the legislation does not include other swords. We recognise the importance of exemptions for swords of historical importance or that are made by hand. I outlined that in my opening remarks. I would like to comment on the surrender scheme and compensation. For those who wish to be compensated for giving in their ninja sword, we have set the standard compensation rate at £5, based on wholesale costs from manufacturers. That is based on research, rather than retail costs, in order to avoid the possibility of retailers profiting from the scheme. The order also specifies that no compensation will be payable unless the individual is the lawful owner or can show that they owned or had a contract to acquire the weapon on or before the cut-off date of 27 March 2025. Individuals will also need to provide acceptable proof, such as a purchase receipt or other evidence, that they owned the weapon before that date. We have also provided a defence for blunt items. That will enable collectors of fantasy swords and users of blunt training or re-enactment swords to possess and purchase items that would otherwise be prohibited. Of course, if a blunt item that falls under the definition is subsequently sharpened, it will become illegal, and a charge of unlawful possession of a prohibited offensive weapon could be laid. A defence already exists for those who want to own prohibited swords for sports, martial arts and re-enactment, and we will be extending that defence to ninja swords. Again, I thank those who have contributed throughout the debate on this subject, and those who have shared their thoughts with me and my colleague the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East and other Members of Parliament in all parts of the House and across the country who have been involved in supporting Pooja, Nikita and their family in their campaign. We are united in recognising that knife crime is dangerous, abhorrent, and all too often deadly. It leaves families utterly broken and communities devastated. The order represents an important step in the effort to halve knife crime driven by the Home Secretary, for whom that has been a personal commitment. I commend it to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. 2.49 pm Committee rose.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Resettlement of Ukrainians: Coatbridge · Hansard source

  More

  I will cover that when I come to my points on the UPE scheme. I pay particular regard to the efforts and determination that teams in North Lanarkshire have shown and to their support for Ukrainian families seeking sanctuary. We heard about the rapid refurbishment of properties and how Ukrainian families have been able to find good accommodation and be supported to establish themselves and integrate into the community. We have seen in all our constituencies—indeed, I saw it myself when I came to Scotland last month—the support given to children to settle in schools and nurseries and how they have been welcomed in our communities. I also recognise the support given to help Ukrainian families to seek employment, be more self-sufficient and extend their contribution to our society. There are a number of initiatives in the areas of culture, art, dance and so on, all of which are important in staying connected with Ukraine, but are also important—particularly for children and families—for connecting with the wider community and ensuring that a sense of diversity is truly appreciated. I thank all my hon. Friends and all hon. Members for their support for Ukrainians in their constituencies and for their stability and certainty in the UK. A number of issues have been raised. I will broadly say that we engage regularly with the Ukrainian community and its representatives. As well as meeting members of the Ukrainian community in Scotland last month, when it was very valuable to hear of their experiences in different parts of the country directly, I attended the service at the Ukrainian Catholic church in London to commemorate the third anniversary of the full-scale, horrific and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. I assure the House that the Government stand in solidarity, as I know we all do, with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people against Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked and barbaric war. Along with our allies, we remain unwavering and united in our support for Ukraine’s defence of its freedoms and pursuit of peace and justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill also raised the horror of children being abducted. To demonstrate our continued commitment to and support for Ukraine, earlier this year the Government, led by the Prime Minister, signed the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership agreement, laying the foundations for closer collaboration and co-operation between our two countries. The partnership seeks to ensure an enduring alliance for life beyond this conflict, covering economic and trade co-operation, investment in energy and infrastructure, and cultural ties, including the twinning of British and Ukrainian schools. That builds on the really important work that is going on and the relationship being built between British and Ukrainian children both here and in Ukraine, which will be important for that relationship in future years. Thanks to the immense generosity of the British people, we have offered or extended temporary sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families here in the UK through the bespoke Ukraine visa schemes. The schemes have provided much-needed sanctuary to our Ukrainian friends for the past few years. We continue to do that, and the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme remains open. The Ukraine schemes provide an initial period of three years’ permission to stay in the UK, recognising the inherent uncertainty of the conflict. Understandably, as time has passed, there has been a need to provide further certainty to those who have come to the UK. That is why in February the Government launched the new Ukraine permission extension scheme, which provides a further 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK and a continuation of rights to work, to study and to access benefits. Section 3C leave is applied from when an application is successfully submitted. We want to make sure that students can complete their studies. I know that there have been questions about how that is implemented, and I can certainly share some information about whether we can make that a bit easier, beyond the support already in place. We are working with universities and others on this, including whether support is sufficient or whether we need to do anything differently. The launch of the scheme demonstrates our continued support of Ukrainians here in the UK, and the offer of further permission to stay, along with the continuation of the same rights and benefits, provides vital certainty and security. Members have raised points about settlement. As I have said, it is a tribute to the British people and the leadership of Governments and Members across the House that we have been able to see so many Ukrainians here in the UK, able to support themselves and their families through incredibly difficult circumstances and living their lives independently. I have heard the matters raised by Members, and the Ukrainian schemes have always sought to provide temporary sanctuary to those displaced by the war in Ukraine. The schemes are not and have never been routes to settlement, but at its heart that reflects the wishes of the Ukrainian Government for the future return of their citizens. The importance of that cannot be overstated. There are millions more displaced Ukrainians in Europe and beyond, particularly women and children, and as events in Ukraine develop, our support remains steadfast. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill can be assured that we continue to keep the Ukraine schemes under review to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of Ukrainians. In closing, I thank him again for securing this Adjournment debate and allowing important contributions from Members to be heard. Question put and agreed to.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Resettlement of Ukrainians: Coatbridge · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally) for securing this important Adjournment debate on the issue of displaced Ukrainians here in the UK, and the resettlement of Ukrainians in his constituency. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for her impassioned speech highlighting the culture of Ukrainians, the work done and effort made to integrate the community, and the contribution that Ukrainians make in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Bellshill is a dedicated supporter of those Ukrainians who have found sanctuary in his constituency. I thank all hon. Members here who have made significant contributions, showing that this is the story of not just one constituency, but many of our constituencies across the country. I recognise the work of North Lanarkshire council, which responded to the call from the UK and Scottish Governments to extend the hand of support to those Ukrainians who were fleeing and coming here in their time of need. I also recognise the work that my hon. Friend has done as a councillor over a number of years, leading on many programmes and being a leading voice on this issue.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to speak about new clause 32, which would mean that people who are settled in the UK had that status automatically revoked in a wide range of circumstances. Irrespective of any other relevant factors, such as how long a person has lived here, settlement could be automatically revoked when a person earns less than £38,700, has received benefits or would not meet requirements for settlement that have subsequently changed. We have heard important contributions from hon. Members across the Committee about why that is unworkable, for a range of reasons. I understand why the Government are seeking to bring this forward— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, the Opposition—it was a slip of the tongue. I also understand that the shadow Minister is seeking to continue his run of speeches—with his new tie today—in this Committee sitting, but let me lay out a couple of circumstances that clearly show that the new clause would be unworkable. The proposals would create injustice in certain cases. People who are settled and have been paying tax and national insurance contributions for decades could have their settlement revoked because they temporarily fall on hard times. Let us imagine, for example, a couple—a British man with his American partner—who have been living together in this country for many years. He gets badly sick and he cannot work. She ends up having to look after him in local authority housing. I guess that under the Opposition’s rules, when he dies, she would be banned from settling in the UK. That is the sort of circumstance that would logically follow. It is important to note as well that most migrants become eligible to access public funds only at the point at which they gain settlement—mainly ILR. The expectation is that temporary migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and to accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. That approach reflects the need to maintain the general public’s confidence that immigration brings benefits to our country, rather than costs to the public purse. I can understand that as an underlying driver for some of today’s debate, but it is important that we keep this in the context of an immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. The no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing principle adopted by successive Governments. There is also an ability to apply for the no recourse to public funds condition to be lifted in certain circumstances, so there are safeguards for the most vulnerable. Let me turn to the new clause’s other core condition, on revoking the ILR of a “foreign criminal”—the shadow Minister referred specifically to that. As we have said before, and throughout this Committee, settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement. Settlement conveys significant benefits and provides a pathway to British citizenship. Settlement can be revoked for criminality, deception or fraud in obtaining settlement, or other significant non-conducive reasons. A person’s settlement is also invalidated if they are deported. The Government have been clear—in fact, we could not have been clearer—that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK whenever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity. I want to emphasise another point—Government Members, in particular, have mentioned this—about the figures from the Centre for Policy Studies. It is worth repeating that figures in that report refer to a period of historically high levels of net migration under the previous Government. For that and many other reasons, they are not a sound basis for an evidence-based discussion.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, it is important to have data that can inform policymaking and public debate. This is a separate matter to the one of those who come to work, settle and contribute to our economy and society, which I know we all want to see—that is indeed what we see in our constituencies—but it is also important that those who come through humanitarian routes are supported to access employability skills and employment, so that they can support themselves and their families. It is important that we look at how joined-up we are and to what extent that support is in place. Amendment 22 agreed to. Amendments made: 23, in clause 55, page 56, line 29, after “to” insert “any of the Channel Islands or”. This amendment enables certain provisions of the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands. Amendment 24, in clause 55, page 56, line 31, after second “to” insert “any of the Channel Islands or”.— (Dame Angela Eagle.) This amendment enables certain amendments and repeals by the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to any of the Channel Islands. Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 56 Commencement Amendment made: 25, in clause 56, page 57, line 15, after “35” insert “, (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc)”.— (Dame Angela Eagle.) This amendment to the commencement clause has the effect of bringing NC31 into force 2 months after Royal Assent. Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 30 Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail “(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3). (2) In section 3(1)(c) (conditions which may be applied to limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom)— (a) omit the ‘and’ at the end of sub-paragraph (iv), and (b) at the end of sub-paragraph (v) insert— ‘(vi) an electronic monitoring condition (see Schedule 1A); (vii) a condition requiring the person to be at a particular place between particular times, either on particular days or on any day; (viii) a condition requiring the person to remain within a particular area; (ix) a condition prohibiting the person from being in a particular area; (x) such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.’ (3) Before Schedule 2 insert— ‘Schedule 1A Electronic monitoring conditions 1 For the purposes of section 3(1)(c)(vi), an “electronic monitoring condition” means a condition requiring the person on whom it is imposed (“P”) to co-operate with such arrangements as the Secretary of State may specify for detecting and recording by electronic means one or more of the following— (a) P’s location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place; (b) P’s presence in a location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place; (c) P’s absence from a location at specified times, during specified periods of time or while the arrangements are in place. 2 The arrangements may in particular— (a) require P to wear a device; (b) require P to make specified use of a device; (c) require P to communicate in a specified manner and at specified times or during specified periods; (d) involve the exercise of functions by persons other than the Secretary of State. 3 If the arrangements require P to wear, or make specified use of, a device they must— (a) prohibit P from causing or permitting damage to, or interference with, the device, and (b) prohibit P from taking or permitting action that would or might prevent the effective operation of the device. 4 An electronic monitoring condition may not be imposed on a person unless the person is at least 18 years old. 5 In this Schedule “specified” means specified in the arrangements.’ (4) In Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail), in paragraph 2(1) (conditions of bail), after paragraph (e) insert— ‘(ea) a condition requiring the person to be at a particular place between particular times, either on particular days or on any day; (eb) a condition requiring the person to remain within a particular area; (ec) a condition prohibiting the person from being in a particular area;’”.— (Dame Angela Eagle.) This new clause makes provision about the conditions which can be imposed on a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or a grant of immigration bail. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 3 Mar 2025 · Draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Ministers for their contributions, as well their overall support for the measures in these statutory instruments. They ensure the robustness, efficiency and security of our systems, while future-proofing them and keeping us in line with our competitors. I had an experience last year in Australia where I ended up walking straight through immigration without anyone checking my passport, and I had no idea what had happened. Having gone through, I was out the other side hunting for someone to give my documents to, but I then realised that I had come through an automated system, so my face must have passed the test. That was an example of how we can both improve the customer experience and maintain our border security. Given the increasing number of visitors to our country that we expect in future from some of our forecasts, we want to ensure that people are not coming to our border and being held unnecessarily. We also want to ensure that we update both our technology and our systems, while being welcoming to those coming to Britain. I want to respond to a few of the points that were raised. I recognise the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about ensuring that we reduce abuse of our routes. He quoted from the Border Force’s 2025 strategy; that was written five years ago, so it will obviously need updating to be in line with future provisions. Some of its programmes began, but others were not quite seen through over the last five years for various reasons. I think the broad direction of travel, as well as the importance of investment in the border, is recognised in all parts of the House. We want to ensure that we have advanced passenger information, which gives information on who may be coming ahead their arrival at the UK border. ETAs are all about trying to ensure that we stop those who might pose a risk from actually travelling to the UK in the first place. The shadow Minister is right to raise that issue, and we want to ensure that we are looking at a border transformation that continues to keep our country as safe as we can. In my remarks, I outlined the four main areas involved in that: the transition away from physical documents; the retention of biometrics; the prevention of abuse; and the powers to enrol biometrics at the border. The transition away from physical documents was raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and I want to respond to her point about supporting those who are vulnerable in that transition. When working on the e-visa process, we looked very closely at reducing any risks to those who are more vulnerable in the transition. It was also important to recognise the need for people to have something physical to show to demonstrate status, which is why we have allowed for the printing of an individual’s e-visa account. It does not mean that that is their e-visa account, but it means that they have something physical to refer to in subsequent discussions with the Home Office. It can be used as evidence of having an e-visa account. This is one of the challenges that came out of the Windrush scandal—how someone can prove what their status is and what their records are with the Government. It is important that people are able to prove their status and records. That print-out can be kept, travelled with and used in discussions with the Home Office. It could be used as a supporting document if someone were to have issues coming back from travelling. If the carrier they were travelling was not calling the carrier hub or there were an issue with their electronic status, there would be a document they could have in their hand. I want to make sure that the message is out there that people will be able to use the document for that. In relation to vulnerable persons, we recognise that the transition to e-visas has an impact on those who are more digitally excluded. That is why we continue to work closely with a range of stakeholders. Before Christmas I did an interview with Age UK, which shared the video on its Facebook page about how we meet stakeholders who are raising concerns with us to reassure them and explain the mitigations we have in place. We provide a free assisted digital service for those who may be digitally excluded. We work collaboratively with a range of third-party stakeholders who are funded to provide support services to vulnerable customers with the most complex needs. Users can also contact UK Visas and Immigration’s resolution centre, which provides telephone and email support to those using the online immigration status services. The centre can assist users experiencing technical difficulties with their online immigration status. Where necessary, the resolution centre will enable an individual’s status to be verified through alternative means as well. In addition, individuals can nominate a helper and give them limited access to their account. That is extremely important. Where a person is unable to manage their own affairs—due to age or disability, for example—they can appoint a proxy who can be authorised to create and manage the account on their behalf. With a digitalised system, we can send multiple notifications to remind people and their proxies what they are required to do. That is similar to when my sister was able to be a proxy for my mother for medical records; the same email that went to my mother also went to my sister, who could have a conversation with her about what it contained. The changes in the instrument will ensure that the right legal framework is in place to support the ongoing transition to e-visas. We will not require people over the age of 70 to update their facial image or make them create an account if they hold an expired biometric residence permit, but we will encourage them to update it for their own convenience. We are looking at a range of methodologies to monitor the performance of the e-visa system. That includes reviewing feedback and complaints and having continued engagement with interested groups that represent vulnerable users. In fact, we do this on an ongoing basis. We will also monitor levels of usage. Finally, on ETAs and tourism, it is important to note the research done on this. There has not been much evidence that fees increases to date have affected volumes on tourism routes. The assessment published alongside the fees order suggests that any increase to the fee within the limit set by the new maximum will be unlikely to have a significant impact on demand, estimating a 0.5% fall in ETA applications in a central cost scenario, and an impact on tourism of £42 million in the next financial year. It is worth saying that in the 11 or so years that the UK has had the electronic system for travel authorisation, there has actually been an increase in the number of visitors to the US. I will just mention Northern Ireland, because it has been raised with me before in the House. We understand the concerns about the potential impact of ETAs on tourism in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive since the inception of the ETA policy, and we will continue to work with partners to understand the impact of ETAs in Northern Ireland. It is important that we are able to have those who are crossing the land border into Northern Ireland complete an ETA, and that we have a better understanding of all those who are seeking to come to the UK. I will make a final comment on sponsorship. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove raised the question of health and care visas, and she will also understand, I am sure, that it is important that we provide all the support we can for those already in the UK who may be in between employers, so that they can be employed by services that are still looking to recruit from overseas. That is one reason why the Home Office has been working with the regional hubs and the Department of Health and Social Care on this, with £60 million of funding having gone into it. For those who have come here on health and care visas—for whatever reason, whether a sponsorship licence has been withdrawn, or there have been issues of abuse or poor conditions with their employer—we are more easily able to match them with areas and regions within the UK where there is recruitment happening. It is different in each region, but it is extremely important to make sure that the system works effectively. We continue to work with employers in all sectors to understand where there is demand and need for recruitment from abroad. That is a key area that we continue to keep under review with the Migration Advisory Committee, which is looking at where we have particular dependence on skilled worker recruitment from abroad, and what more we can do through the new systems we are putting in place to better predict demand and to upskill at home. In conclusion, the changes in the order will ensure that our fees are set at a level that supports our fees and funding objectives. I emphasise again that these changes will not amend specific fees, and any future fee changes will be subject to approval by Parliament. Throughout the lifespan of the fees order, immigration fees will continue to be reviewed and updated where necessary, and all existing Government oversight arrangements will remain in place. The modernised immigration and border system will allow foreign nationals to view their status information in real time on digital platforms in the form of an e-visa, and update their details or documentation more readily. The regulations will simplify the process for gathering biometrics, standardise the way we use them and retain them, and allow us to take a significant step forward in delivering a border and immigration system that is a modern, digital service. As such, I commend the order and the regulations to the Committee. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Biometric Information etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025.— (Seema Malhotra.)

• 24 Jan 2025 · Antisocial Behaviour: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) on securing this important debate and on the work he is doing in his constituency. He has very clearly set out the impact of antisocial behaviour in the cases and stories he has narrated. He has also set out how, when antisocial behaviour is not dealt with, it can be an attraction for other types of crime, creating fear in our communities. The story of how children can pick that up was also well highlighted. He went on to highlight the Conservatives’ record over the past 14 years and the impact it has had on our neighbourhood policing. I am responding in today’s debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), who I am sure will be willing to pick up further on any issues with our hon. Friend. I know he has had a productive conversation with her very recently in which he raised these matters. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the lamentable record of the previous Government on these matters. Even after the previous Government belatedly sought to deal with and respond to the reduction in the overall number of officers that they presided over, policing has still not returned to our streets. There are still fewer police officers in neighbourhood teams. The proportion of the public who say they never see an officer on the beat has doubled, and the number of police community support officers has halved. It is little wonder, then, that the types of crime and conduct that neighbourhood policing used to tackle have soared, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead highlighted. Whether it happens in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire or anywhere else, antisocial behaviour is a blight on people and places. As MPs across the House will have seen in their constituencies, it affects communities in different ways and comes in different forms, but fundamentally this is about respect—respect for our laws and our expectations as a society, and respect for our fellow citizens. Those who lack that basic respect and behave antisocially have to be made to face the consequences of their actions. We need to send a message that we will not stand by while decent, law-abiding people suffer as a result of the selfishness of others. To deliver the change that the country needs, we need to restore a sense of local pride, and give people the confidence that they are safe and secure, whether they are at home, in their neighbourhoods or in public places. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes our safer streets mission, and it is why we have made stronger action to tackle antisocial behaviour a central part of that mission, with a particular emphasis on improving the police response alongside tougher powers to tackle perpetrators. My hon. Friend laid out some of the specific problems that his constituents have encountered. He will know that I cannot comment on particular cases, but I think it will be helpful for me to share more about the action we are taking more widely. The Government have committed to five core missions, which seek to address some of the fundamental challenges that society is facing over the next 10 years. The safer streets mission will halve violence against women and girls, halve knife crime, and restore confidence in policing and the criminal justice system. It is focused on addressing harm and confidence in parallel, by taking a whole-system approach. These are long-term aims, but the Government are already taking decisive first steps towards their delivery, including delivering thousands more neighbourhood policing roles and taking steps to tackle antisocial behaviour through new penalties for offenders. These ambitious aims will require a dedicated coalition of Government, public services, the private sector, charities, and the public themselves, to be successful. Neighbourhood police officers are at the forefront of the fight against antisocial behaviour. However, neighbourhood policing has declined to such an extent in the last decade that many of the bonds of trust and respect between the police and local communities have been lost. We are going to bring back neighbourhood policing and ensure that thousands of additional officers are out patrolling towns and communities as part of our mission to make streets safer. Neighbourhood policing sits at the heart of the British policing model, and it is a critical building block in helping communities feel safe. We are determined to restore confidence in policing to record levels and restore the vital connection between the police and the communities they serve. That is why we are also working with policing to implement a new neighbourhood policing guarantee, restoring patrols to town centres, recruiting thousands more personnel and ensuring that every community has a named officer to turn to. We recognise that no single agency can reduce antisocial behaviour alone, and that doing so requires that important partnership. For our part, the Government will ensure that the police, local authorities and other agencies have the powers they need to respond to antisocial behaviour. The powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not go far enough. We will put that right by introducing the respect order. Under the new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions, including bans on entering areas where they have behaved antisocially, such as town centres or other public places. Anyone found breaching a respect order, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead referred to, will face being arrested and could end up behind bars. We will pilot these measures initially, to ensure that they are as effective as possible, before rolling them out across England and Wales. These changes are long overdue. My hon. Friend mentioned the harm that drugs can do to communities. Tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission. We know from the crime survey for England and Wales that people using or dealing drugs is commonly among the top three antisocial behaviour issues for people in their area. The police have a critical role to play in cracking down on drugs misuse and antisocial behaviour. We are working with the police to support and increase voluntary referrals into treatment. Diverting those who use illegal drugs into interventions such as drug treatment services is key to reducing drug misuse, drug-related crime and reoffending. We support the use of drug testing on arrest and out-of-court resolutions to ensure that individuals who commit drug and related offences are given the opportunity to change their behaviour by diverting them to meaningful and appropriate interventions. The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) asked what is different since the Labour Government came into power. County lines is the most violent model of drugs supply and a harmful form of child criminal exploitation. Gangs exploit children and vulnerable adults to move and store drugs and money, often using coercion, intimidation, violence and weapons. Since July 2024, police activity through the county lines programme has resulted in over 400 county lines being closed and hundreds of arrests. Alongside that, the police have identified and referred over 800 children and vulnerable people for safeguarding and support, while over 200 young people have been supported by our specialist victim support services provided by Catch22. We will continue to provide dedicated support for children and young people to escape county lines and child exploitation. That goes hand in hand with our manifesto commitment to roll out further support through the young futures prevention partnerships, identifying at-risk children and young people and making better use of the existing youth services provision. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) raised the important issue of retail crime. As the Home Secretary set out in her speech to the Labour party conference, the Government will introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect hard-working and dedicated staff. That is long overdue. We will also end the effective immunity for shop theft of goods under £200. Shop theft of any amount is illegal, and by repealing the relevant legislation we will ensure that everyone knows that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead and all Members who have contributed to this important debate. Antisocial behaviour is clearly an issue of substantial concern in his constituency, as it is all over the country. We have to grip it and, through our safer streets mission, that is precisely what the Government intend to do. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Certificate of Common Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this very important debate and thank those who have spoken from the Back Benches, including my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). Before I make any further comments, I assure the hon. Member for Strangford that I am very happy to meet him, as always, and indeed I will be visiting Scotland to talk about a number of the issues he has raised today. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), made very similar comments to her speech in the last debate that we were in. I think we can all agree that the immigration system needs to be fair, controlled and managed—much better managed that the chaos that we inherited. Many issues in the design of the health and care visa system contribute to the problems we see today. It is important that that is understood and acknowledged in this debate. I want to make a broad point: although I will hopefully address a number of the issues raised today, perhaps with some more positive input than may have been understood from some of the recent changes we have made, we understand that our net migration does need to come down from the record highs that we saw under the last Government. We have supported some of the rule changes brought in, including the stopping of dependants, which hon. Members will know. In that spirit, it is important to say that the Government recognise the vital contribution that care professionals from overseas make to our social care sector. We do share my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s concerns about the treatment of international workers in the care sector. A number of the issues they face are also faced by others from within the UK who are working in the same sector, and I will highlight some of the work we are doing to enact reforms that will be in the interests of all in this very important sector for our country. My hon. Friend secured this debate in support of a proposal by Unison, as he outlined. I thank Unison for the considerable research and work it does in this area. I look forward to meeting the organisation to discuss not just these issues and its proposal, but its wider insights on issues facing workers. I hope that in this debate I can address some of the concerns raised and set out both what we are already doing, which I think goes quite a long way to addressing those concerns, and why addressing those concerns continues to be a high priority for this Government. Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care visa, which recognises the crucial contribution made by our international health and care workers. Those visas involve significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a quicker processing time and a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Since February 2020, UK employers have been able to use this route to recruit people from overseas to work as carers. Under the previous Government, the number of carers recruited grew beyond expectations, and it is for that reason as well that this Government have maintained the measures the previous Government introduced in the spring of 2024. The changes brought in by these new visas were stood up at pace by the previous Government to address what had become acute shortages in the adult social care sector. The issues the sector was facing had not been addressed and became a crisis—not unlike other workforce challenges—and they were then worsened by the covid-19 pandemic. The safeguards that should have been put in place when setting up these visas were not as effective as they could have been, and we have seen a range of abusive and exploitative practices in the sector. These have ranged from employers not having the work to fulfil workers’ contracts to abhorrent practices such as the housing issues that have been talked about, unfair shifts, pay and documents being withheld, and modern slavery. Hon. Members have also spoken about a lack of dignity, and a fear of taking holiday or sick leave or of speaking up when issues are faced. These are serious concerns and must be addressed. That is why, in the autumn, I met colleagues in the Department of Health. At that meeting, I discussed these issues and the progress of actions that have already been taken, looking at where we might see longer-term plans for the care sector. As has been referenced in today’s debate, the recently introduced Employment Rights Bill establishes a framework for fair pay agreements, through which an agreement for the adult social care sector can be negotiated and reached in partnership by employers, worker representatives and others. That is yet another example of the Government taking steps and actions to address the serious issues that have been outlined. The Minister for Care and I will be discussing these issues further with our counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, recognising local government’s stake in these issues, to understand how our Departments can come together and work more collaboratively. Although the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole focuses on health and care workers, it is worth mentioning that these issues seem to be particularly prevalent in lower-paying sectors such as care. In other areas of the health sector, the sponsorship system seems to be working well, with little need for significant Home Office intervention. However, I want to set out the steps we are taking to assist affected workers and the action that is already being implemented to tackle rogue employers. First, we have seen that jobs in the care sector often do not have enough hours to support the workers who have been recruited to come to the UK. It is in no one’s interest to grant care worker visas when there is no guaranteed care work for visa holders to come to; that does not support care needs or our constituents, and it can also leave visa holders unable to support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. UK Visas and Immigration is applying the genuine vacancy test with a clearer understanding of the care sector’s recruitment processes and practices, to make sure that sponsors prove that the job is required and that they have enough work to ensure that the person will be doing the proposed job and paid the required salary. That is vital, given that international recruits on those contracts do not have recourse to public funds. In the case of care workers who have come to this country in good faith to support these sectors and our constituents, but who have been left without a licensed sponsor, the Department for Health and Social Care has been working closely with the Home Office to design a process that will support those displaced care workers into new roles within the adult social care sector. Government officials, alongside 15 regional hubs in England made up of local authorities and directors of adult social services, are working together to support displaced workers into new roles. These regional partnerships have received £16 million this financial year to support them to prevent and respond to unethical practices in the sector. That includes providing funding support to help international recruits understand their rights. It also includes establishing operational processes with regional partnerships to support individuals to switch employers and remain working in the care sector in which they have been impacted when, for example, their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. We need to build on the progress that has already been made. It is important to note that, as part of that process, workers in adult social care roles receive a bespoke letter direct from the Home Office that notifies them if their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. It also gives them the directions and contacts, so that they can get in contact with their regional partnership hub if they want to secure new employment and new sponsorship. The letter is sent before the visa cancellation process starts and is designed to give workers in adult social care the time to access assistance. I am keen to see the process made quicker, and I will work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that that is the case and that the process is as effective as it can be. Where a worker believes that they are being exploited, but their sponsor is not yet subject to Home Office compliance action, the Government encourage them to come forward to regional hubs. Although the service is primarily for care workers whose employer’s sponsor licence has been revoked, we would expect support to be offered to other care workers who approach those hubs. I understand that some workers will be fearful, but I would encourage them and send them this message: they should come forward to report their experiences and secure help. For care workers specifically, the Home Office will waive priority service fees for applications supported by regional hubs. Those who have come to the UK legitimately to support our care sector should be given the best opportunity to do so and be treated with fairness and respect. That is why the Government are also stepping up action against rogue employers. The Government have made clear our intention to crack down on those employers who are abusing the immigration system, and we will prevent them from sponsoring overseas workers. That will benefit all workers across our points-based system. Let me turn specifically to the issue of employers passing on sponsorship costs to their workers, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members and is an outrageous practice. It has always been the intention that those benefiting from the recruitment of overseas workers should bear the costs of that sponsorship, and the Government believe that to be typical of most good employers. However, there are a small number of employers who have sought to load their sponsorship costs on to lower-paid international workers, and that must be stopped. I am pleased to confirm that the Home Office has implemented policy changes to address that practice by skilled worker sponsors, including in the health and care sector. Those sponsors are now prevented from passing on the costs of acquiring a sponsor licence or of assigning the certificate of sponsorship, as well as any administrative and legal costs associated with having and using a licence. It is our intention to go further and implement that more broadly across all sponsored work routes. As we set out before Christmas, the Government intend to go further and ban any employer who flouts employment laws from engaging with the immigration system. Visa and employment laws will be brought into closer alignment. Our sponsorship system will also reflect measures being driven and delivered by our Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. The Home Office will ensure that new protections set out in the Bill and the work of the flagship fair work agency are integrated into the sponsorship framework, strengthening the existing measures designed to prevent the mistreatment and exploitation of sponsored workers. Although a key objective of the sponsorship system is to ensure that international workers are protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses, the Government recognise that the requirement to be sponsored and the worker’s reliance on their sponsor can, in some circumstances, make it more difficult for sponsored workers to change their employer. Those who wish to seek alternative employment can do so if they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor and make a new application. They are able to do that at any time, and do not need to wait until their sponsor is no longer able to employ them. Individuals have different options, depending on their circumstances, and can seek advice from an accredited immigration adviser. If a sponsored care worker has lost their job because the sponsor’s licence has been revoked, they should, again, contact their regional support hub for assistance, as people who have been the victim of exploitation. The most important thing is that these individuals are supported to use the process and are able to make an application, which will enable them to regularise their stay. Anything short of that risks leaving them in a more vulnerable position, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that that is prevented. Finally, we are deeply concerned by reports of unethical practices relating to international recruits in the care sector. That is why we are taking decisive steps to address the issue, and why UK Visas and Immigration continues to investigate and take action alongside partners where evidence of abuse is found. It is engaging with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and other relevant agencies to hold employers to account, and working with the Department for Health and Social Care to support impacted workers. In conclusion, we continue to look at the best approaches for the immigration system, but it is important to note that the sponsorship compliance regime has exposed widespread abuse and stripped hundreds of rogue employers of their ability to recruit internationally. The system is therefore key to ensuring that future workers receive the pay and conditions promised when they applied for their visa. Although we recognise the issues raised today, there is also much more work to do urgently to improve the system. We are utterly committed to doing that and to working with colleagues across the House to make those changes and improvements a reality.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank all those from across the Chamber who have contributed to this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank Shannon who started the petition and the over 100,000 people who signed it. The petition was concluded before the general election, but it has been brought forward for debate in the House. It is important to address the point raised by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) about the delays in Home Office cases. That is a separate matter from the one we are discussing. However, I will say that we inherited a Home Office with utterly chaotic systems. The huge amount—£700 million—spent on the Rwanda scheme and the diversion of caseworkers have partly contributed to the chaos that we have seen across a number of visa routes. I hope that we are starting to bring that under some control, so that applications can be processed more swiftly and people are not left waiting as long as they have been. It is also important to make the point that migration has always been a part of our nation’s history. For generations, people have travelled here from all over the world to contribute to our economy, study in our universities, work in our public services and be part of our communities. Indeed, British citizens also continue to travel across the world and may choose to make their home abroad. We recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country, but as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and all those across the House will be aware, we have said that net migration, which reached record highs under the last Government—over 900,000 in the year ending June 2023—is unsustainable. It needs to come down, and we have made that commitment. However, there has been a broader conversation in the contributions from Members across the House. I will endeavour to respond to the specific points raised, but first I want to set out the background to the minimum income requirement, or the MIR. I will set out how it came about and what our position is now. As we know, appendix FM was brought into the immigration rules in 2012 to set out the requirements for family members wishing to come to or stay in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a family member who is British or settled here. It also brought the MIR into the immigration rules, with the aim of ensuring that family migrants could be supported at a reasonable level by their sponsoring family member so that, as has been raised, there was no unreasonable burden on the British taxpayer and to help to ensure that they had the independence and means to participate sufficiently in everyday life, to support themselves and to facilitate integration into Britain. The right to family life is a qualified right, and the family immigration rules, including the MIR, carefully balance that right against the legitimate aim of protecting the economic wellbeing of the UK. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable to both them and the taxpayer. In 2017, the Supreme Court agreed that this principle strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and the community in general. When the MIR was introduced as part of the changes to the immigration rules, it was set at £18,600, following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. At that time, the figure represented the level of income that a family could receive at which point they would cease to be eligible for income support. Between its introduction and April 2024, it was not increased in line with inflation or real wages or adjusted in the light of rising numbers of migrants using the route. The previous Government then decided to raise the MIR to bring it in line with the median income for skilled workers, which is currently £38,700. The decision was made without consultation and without the benefit of advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Government decided to implement the rise incrementally. The first increase, to £29,000, took place in April 2024, and no further changes have yet taken place. It is our view that any change must be underpinned by a solid evidence base and form part of a system that is fair, clear and consistent. To achieve that, as has been mentioned, the Home Secretary has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. That includes the level of the MIR and how it can be met.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, that is what we would expect. The Migration Advisory Committee has already completed a call for evidence. It may be of interest to the House that that call for evidence, which gathered the views of stakeholders and those affected by changes to family rules and closed on 11 December, saw more than 2,000 responses—a record for a Migration Advisory Committee consultation. The comments received will inform the review being conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee. I am sure that many interested Members and their constituents will have taken part in that opportunity to provide views, because, as has been mentioned, a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that effective recommendations can be made. The Migration Advisory Committee has also commissioned two pieces of research to independent research contractors: a survey with a sample of applicants to the family visa, and qualitative reviews with people who applied and those who were not able to apply. Fieldwork will start in the next few weeks, and further information can be found on gov.uk. The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent body, and I know that the review will be robust and transparent, considering the impact on family life, children, equalities and regional variations in income. It is expected that the MAC will issue its report in the summer, and we will carefully consider its recommendations before making any further changes. I will address a few of the points raised by hon. Members from across the House. Some hon. Members called for us to scrap the MIR altogether. However, as I said, it is a long-established principle that family life in the UK must be on a basis that balances the needs of the family and those of the UK taxpayer, and that also enables family migrants to integrate into British life. The family immigration rules are flexible and contain safeguards to protect the right to family life. It is worth highlighting a few of the safeguards that are currently in the rules, because that will inform some of the hon. Members who made contributions today. Those who cannot meet the core requirements of the rules, including the MIR, may still be granted leave if they have exceptional circumstances that mean refusing their application would be unjustifiably harsh. That takes into account the impact on children and considers their best interests. It is in accordance with our obligations under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Where someone is granted leave on the basis of exceptional circumstances, they are placed on a longer, 10-year route to settlement, which is granted in four tranches of 30-month periods, with a fifth application for indefinite leave to remain. The rules recognise that some sponsors will have reduced earning capacity as a result of disability or caring for someone with a disability. Therefore, an applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of certain specified disability-related benefits or allowances is exempt from meeting the MIR. Instead, they must meet a requirement for adequate maintenance, demonstrating that they can support themselves and their family without relying on public funds.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Windrush: Victim Support · Hansard source

  More

  This Labour Government are determined to put right the appalling injustice suffered by members of the Windrush community. We will ensure that those affected receive the compensation they deserve, and that cultural change is embedded permanently in the Home Office. At the end of November 2024, over £100 million has been paid to individuals across almost 3,000 claims under the Windrush compensation scheme. We have also re-established the Windrush unit to drive forward the action needed to ensure that what happened to the Windrush generation never happens again.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Workplace Pay Gaps · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate. I thank her, as other hon. Members have, for her long-standing advocacy and campaigning on the issues, which she demonstrated deeply in her speech today. I am proud to have worked with her on them. I also acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which were summarised well by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I am pleased to see the support for our direction of travel, and I see that we need to go further and faster. I hope to comment on as many of the issues as possible that colleagues have raised. I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, but I will say that if there had been as much passion for and commitment to some of these issues over the past 14 years, and such a focus on the Conservative party’s record, there would have been greater change than there was. I hope that he will continue to be a strong voice on these issues, not just in Parliament but in his party. Today’s debate is a welcome opportunity to reaffirm and highlight the Government’s commitment to workplace fairness. I am incredibly proud that the work we are taking forward in this Parliament comes on the back of a long history of commitment to equalities legislation, whether that is the Equal Pay Act, the Race Relations Act 1965, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equality Act. One of the key ways that we can measure fairness in the pay that workers receive is by looking at pay gaps. Pay gaps look at the differences in the average pay between groups—for example, the average earnings of women compared with men—while equal pay is a direct comparison of the pay of individuals doing the same or similar work. We have had a number of contributions today on the ranges of and differences in pay gaps. Pay gaps do not necessarily mean that pay discrimination has taken place, but frankly, they often do. They can point to opportunities not provided and processes that lock people out. Those are issues of fairness and workplace security. Pay gaps can also mean that employers are missing out on the talents and skills of a diverse workforce and all the benefits that come with that. Closing pay gaps of all kinds is in everyone’s interest, which is why we want to go further and faster in this Parliament to reach that ambition. It makes sense for business, society, employers and our economy. The timing of this debate is welcome, given that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said—Ethnicity Pay Gap Day falls tomorrow, on 8 January. I acknowledge the work of Dianne Greyson and other campaigners. Since 2018, the campaign has highlighted the need for decisive action to tackle ethnicity pay gaps. Like Disability Pay Gap Day, which was marked on 7 November, and Equal Pay Day on 20 November, the date serves as a reminder of just how far we have to go. We know that ONS data shows that black, African, Caribbean and black British employees have consistently earned less than white employees, when looking at median gross hourly pay. In 2023, the pay gap between disabled and non-disabled employees was 12.7%, and in 2024, the gender pay gap still stood at 13.1%. A number of issues have been raised—not just by my hon. Friend—in relation to accountability, enforcement, regional variation, the right to know, and so on. I will make a few remarks before addressing those points, although I recognise that there may be a shortage of time to address all the points that have been raised today, so I will also be happy to pick them up with hon. Members afterwards. I am proud that in the King’s Speech in July, we strengthened our plans to introduce legislation to root out inequalities and strengthen protections against discrimination. As part of the King’s Speech, we announced the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, through which we will introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees, building on the requirement to publish gender pay gap data. That is a major next step in equalities legislation. The debate on the publication of an ethnicity pay gap report has had the engagement of a range of key stakeholders, including the Runnymede Trust, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Business in the Community, ShareAction, Unison and many others. We also know that many ethnic minority workers still face barriers to progression in the workplace. For example, in March 2023, over 26% of the workforce across NHS trusts in England, but only 11% of those at senior manager level, were from an ethnic minority background. Similarly, although there has been growth in employment rates for disabled people in recent years, there are still significant gaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) laid out. As we know, disabled people have, on average, lower incomes than non-disabled people, and I want to make a couple of comments about the disability pay gap and employment issues. I know that my hon. Friend, who has expertise in this area, has met the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to discuss the disability employment charter. We are taking those comments into account in our response to the Public Services Committee that I hope will be coming shortly. We also remain committed to publishing the findings of the disability workforce reporting consultation 2021-22.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Family and Work Visas · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate. There has been thoughtful consideration of the issues by Members from across the House. I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady did and how she helped her community in August, in those very difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed. I will seek to address all the points raised, but I hope that Members will understand that that may be difficult in the time that I have. I will certainly come back in writing if there are outstanding points. I will deal briefly with a few of the points raised before I go into more detail in my remarks on the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down. Some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) were reflected by others in terms of the quality of caseworking and the service received. As Members of Parliament, we have all experienced those cases and circumstances, so I am glad that the issue he raised has been resolved. Where there are any issues or concerns about whether the system is being fair and how cases are being dealt with, please write to me on those matters. We will certainly look at them in a way that also enables us to learn from what could be happening better and implement those systems. The point about public confidence raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about immigration is important, but it comes back to the point raised more broadly about having an immigration system that is fair, humane, transparent and compliant with the law, including international law. I am keen to make the broader point that it is important that we continue to have dialogue across the House on matters such as immigration, which need and want a lot of cross-party support to deal with the challenges. That is in the interest of our economy and of fairness, but is also important for our security, so we need to have open and transparent debate on such matters and take the input from colleagues across the House. I will come back to other points that have been raised during the debate, but on net migration and some of the changes being made, I want to make it clear that the Government recognise and value the contribution of workers from overseas to our economy and our public services, including our NHS, and they would not function without them. The point has been made, and we are very clear, that the immigration system needs to be properly managed and controlled—and that is important for public confidence too. We are clear that net migration and reliance on overseas recruitment need to come down, and in addition to bringing down levels of overall net migration, our approach will also help ensure that there are better and higher-paid jobs for those who are already resident in the UK. In April 2024, the previous Government introduced a package of changes aimed at reducing overall levels of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. Those changes included requiring any employer in England wishing to recruit international care workers or senior care workers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and to carry out regulated activity. They also included removing the ability for care workers and senior workers to apply with dependents. The package also replaced the previous shortage occupation list with the immigration salary list. The Home Secretary confirmed in July that the Government are retaining those changes. We acknowledge the concerns raised and welcome debates such as this one. I also think it is important, in response to some of the issues, that we lay out where we are going further and taking a different approach. We have established a new framework that will link the Migration Advisory Committee’s work with the newly formed Skills England and skills bodies across the UK, as well as the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Department for Work and Pensions, to support a more coherent approach to migration, skills and labour market issues. I will make a broad point on the issue raised about particular routes and the appendix for domestic abuse. It is extremely important for Members across the House to ensure that we are tackling abuse on any routes. On what is an important safeguard in the system, we are clear that there has to be a high threshold of evidence and that we take steps to tackle abuse wherever we detect that and wherever that occurs. That is extremely important and a clear approach across the Home Office. On salary requirements, for too long, immigration has been used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market issues in the UK. The salary requirements that were raised in the spring related to the median salary for occupations, ensuring people continue to be paid at a higher rate than many in the occupation. That, along with the immigration skills charge, are designed to ensure that employers look first at the resident labour market before looking at employing an international worker. Points about the threshold were raised, and I will come back on a couple of points. For those new to the route since 4 April 2024, who must be paid £38,700 per year or the going rate for their occupation—whichever is higher—the salary floor can be reduced to just over £30,000, depending on tradeable points such as discounts for new entrants. There is some flexibility. Indeed, for those extending visas in this route or working in healthcare or education, who must be paid £29,000 per year or the going rate for their occupation, again, the salary floor can be lowered for roles on the immigration salary list. Those roles in healthcare and education are based on nationally set pay scales or by using tradeable points. It is important to say that immigration remains a reserved matter, and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK can complicate the immigration system, harm its integrity and cause difficulty for employers, who need the flexibility to deploy their staff to other parts of the UK. The independent and expert Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly recommended that we should not operate different salary thresholds for different regions or nations across the UK. I am aware of the concerns from the fishing industry about labour shortages. In the interests of time, I will just say that I am looking forward to meeting my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am certainly happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this too. On the Afghan schemes, I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but I am very pleased that we were able to open that scheme and see the positive response to it. Finally, I will speak to family immigration rules. As colleagues will be aware, on 10 September the Home Secretary paused any further increases to the minimum incomes requirement and commissioned the MAC to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. This review will ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future changes to the minimum income requirement. We expect that conducting a full review of the financial requirements will take approximately nine months. I urge hon. Members to provide views and evidence in response to the MAC’s call for evidence, because I am sure we can all agree that a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that it can make effective recommendations and that policy is informed by evidence.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate, which has given rise to powerful speeches by hon. Members from all parties. Members have spoken up for their constituents and about their experiences and I will try to address as many of the points made as possible. Many issues were covered, whether that was the BNO visa route, security issues at home and in Hong Kong, pensions, home university fees, democratic freedoms, police stations and more. I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for their contributions. The issue has had cross-party support in the past, and I am sure we will continue to work in that spirit in support of Hongkongers in the UK and those who may come here in the future. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will recognise that I may not be able to address all the issues raised today. Some of these complex matters need cross-departmental work, whether that is with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the DFE. I hope that I will cover most of the issues in my comments today, but I assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we will look at all the issues raised. I also pay tribute to the work of Hong Kong Watch and others in sharing their experience and research. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will be aware, the Government are deeply committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I think I speak for all of us when I say that Hongkongers have become an integral part of our economy and local communities, and make fantastic contributions to our national life. I will speak first about the Hong Kong BNO visa route. The route was established in 2021 in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong, which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral responsibility for and commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Since its launch, more than 209,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK. Those Hongkongers are free to live, work and study in virtually any capacity on a pathway to British citizenship. I am sure we will welcome many more Hongkongers to the UK in future so that they can also build a new life for themselves here.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Rural Depopulation · Hansard source

  More

  I need to conclude in a couple of minutes. A point was raised about the English language. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, as it helps visa holders to access services, participate in community life and work. Workers who do not have a good command of English are likely to be more vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. The level that we have set is B1 on the common European framework of reference for languages: lower intermediate English, which is more of a functional understanding. But there are gaps and we have more to do, beyond what we inherited. On the broader point about depopulation, there are many ways in which the previous Government’s levelling-up agenda did not integrate and did not have a strategy for tackling all these issues together. That is why the work that we are doing across the country on devolution is an important part of how we move forward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar again for securing this debate. I have heard and am grateful for the points that he and other Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government will work to continue to understand the issues that Members face in greater detail and will consider how best to work collectively to address them. We must and will remain open to international skills and talent, but I suggest that immigration is not the solution to depopulation, nor must it be used as an alternative to the important job of tackling skills and labour market failures here in the UK, around which we have set out a new approach.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Rural Depopulation · Hansard source

  More

  I have to make my remarks, and the right hon. Member has spoken. I will come back if I have time. On the vision of developing more sustainable alternatives to labour market issues, I am sure that we are all keen to work together. There is no other way. That is why I have asked my officials to work closely with Seafish, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government to address the issues facing the sector and our rural communities, and to make sure we are building together a more sustainable workforce and community.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Rural Depopulation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on his successful securing of this debate. I am extremely grateful to him and to right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I will mention those who have made substantial contributions: my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Hexham (Joe Morris), the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). I acknowledge the contributions from the Opposition leads as well, including the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). I want to address many of the issues raised in today’s debate, which has focused on a range of key points and has brought together the challenges and consequences of depopulation in an important and effective way. I am heartened by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar also saying that he recognises this is an issue that goes way beyond the Home Office and that he plans to raise a number of the challenges with other Departments. I encourage him to do so. The Government recognise the importance of this debate, and the challenges faced by rural and island communities in Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland and more widely across the United Kingdom in Wales and England. Those challenges are now coming to workforces, and are about supporting local and national economies, as well as encouraging young people to feel that they have opportunity in the areas where they grew up. A range of issues was raised and important points were extremely well made, including on some of the generational shifts that are having impacts on families, as well as community cohesion, wider integration and the continued success of local services, the challenges in recruitment across primary local sectors and public services, and the running of our local communities. One of the points raised was in relation to the fishing and fish-processing industries, which is of concern to many colleagues in Scotland. We recognise the contribution of those industries to the lifeblood of our nation, including to coastal and rural communities. Those industries generate almost £2 billion in exports. We recognise the challenges of recruiting domestically. Those and other valuable jobs are often done in difficult circumstances. As has been discussed, there has been a reliance on migration over recent years.