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.

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Visas and Immigration: Processing Times · Hansard source

  More

  UK Visas and Immigration processes millions of visa applications each year. Most of them are processed to the published customer service standards, which is a huge tribute to our hard-working staff, and indeed most straightforward applications are decided within three weeks. In the year ending March 2025, more than 2.1 million visit visas, more than 190,000 work visas and more than 22,000 health and social care visas were issued. On occasion, as the hon. Member may be aware, there are some technical or processing errors, which are resolved as quickly as possible when they come to light.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make some more progress. We are acting to restore order and control to the immigration system and to give law enforcement the powers they need—powers the parties on the Opposition Benches voted against. We have laid out a set of robust measures in the immigration White Paper, including reversing the long-term trend of increasing international recruitment at the expense of skills and training. We want to see net migration come down by investing in training. Also, for the first time, a labour market evidence group will be established, drawing on the best data available to make informed decisions about the state of the labour market and the role that different policies should play, rather than always relying on migration. Immigration must also work for the whole of the UK. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and I have been in a number of debates on the needs of Scotland. Departments across Government, along with the devolved Governments and sector bodies, will engage in the new labour market evidence group as part of the new approach. We will tackle the overly complex family and private life immigration arrangements, where too many cases are treated as exceptional in the absence of a clear framework. That is why legislation will be brought forward to make clear that Government and Parliament decide who should have the right to remain in the UK. That will address cases where legal arguments based on article 8 and the right to family life are being used to frustrate deportation when removal is clearly in the national interest.

• 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

  The hon. Member may not be surprised to hear me say—indeed, I pre-empted her question—that there is not much I can update her on, other than to say that it is a priority for the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. When it is possible to update the House, she will very much want to do that. It is a priority and she is continuing to work on it. I briefly mentioned Dr Levy’s review of adult gender services in NHS England. We want to ensure that all trans people can get the high-quality care they deserve, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) referred to that, too. Also, we remain committed to implementing the recommendations set out in the Cass report, working with NHS England as it continues to improve children’s and young people’s gender services, and ensuring that those services provide the right healthcare, safeguarding and support for children and young people. That means making sure that they are based on the best available evidence and expert clinical opinion. To briefly refer to the Supreme Court judgment again, I recognise that recent years have seen an increasing focus on the definition of sex in the Equality Act and access to single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court has given its judgment on that point, and the Government have been consistently clear that single-sex spaces must be protected, but we also know that trans people must be protected, and their safety and wellbeing is a matter for all of us. It is the role of the Government and Parliament to protect all members of society, and I hope that with the processes we have, we can now work better together to do just that. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Rainbow Map, and they were right to do so. We were ranked in first place in 2015 but went down to 22nd place this year, and that is a matter of concern. The UK has long championed the rights of LGBT+ people at home and abroad, and we proudly uphold a clear, robust and expansive legal and legislative framework. We are working to advance the rights afforded to LGBT+ people, including, as we have spoken about, by bringing forward legislation in relation to conversion practices and strengthening protections against hate crime. We recognise that there is always more to do. As we look forward to the future, the Government’s mission remains constant: to create a fairer, more inclusive society. That entails listening actively rather than imposing viewpoints, and it requires people to stand up for those who are marginalised even when those actions prove politically difficult. This debate has been an important contribution to that. More importantly, it involves remembering the core principle—that equality is not a zero-sum game; it elevates us all. We take pride in our achievements and our values, and we will not let complacency or the intent for division take root. Our commitment is to continue listening, learning and fighting for a society where everyone, regardless of their identity or who they love, can live with safety, dignity and hope.

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

  More

  Some of this depends on the EHRC’s work and the time it takes to respond to the consultation; I know that we all want it to do so effectively. It is a matter on which I am sure the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, who is unable to be here today, will update the House in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West will understand that on one hand, we are saying it needs to be longer, and on the other hand we want clarity. What is important is that it is a consultation in which all voices can be heard. I think he will appreciate the assurance that the updated code will be laid in Parliament and will be there for scrutiny and consideration by both Houses. That will be an important part of the process.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code opened today. [ Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 12WC.] (Correction) I recognise the consensus that two weeks was too short, and people have already been contributing their views. Agreement has been reached with the Secretary of State for a six-week period, and I hope that during that longer period, those who have already put together their views and shared them can take forward that consultation. There will be extensive consultation with stakeholders, and everybody, including parliamentarians, will have the opportunity to contribute. We welcome the EHRC’s commitment to ensure that diverse voices are included and will be listened to. It is important to also recognise that the final draft of the updated code will be laid in Parliament and subject to scrutiny and consideration by both Houses in due course.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right, and the Prime Minister laid out the view that it was the wrong decision. We do need to find a way to tighten up how Parliament understands the rules and how they are interpreted, but as I say, that scheme is not a matter for this Bill. We are at the very end of debating the Bill and now I am being asked what it is for. I am sure that the shadow Ministers do not want to go all the way through the line-by-line debate again. Suffice it to say that the matters they are seeking to extend the legislation to cover stray into broader aspects of immigration that in our view are not appropriate for inclusion in this Bill. There are other mechanisms for us to seek to debate and change immigration rules.

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

  More

  I am pleased to speak on new clause 14. It is unclear whether its intention is to commission a review of the impact of setting a minimum wage for new entrants or for settled workers in the care sector. I interpreted that its effect would be the Government commissioning a review into implementing a national minimum wage for workers in the social care sector. It is unclear whether it would apply to international workers or the whole labour market. It is also unclear—I think this was the shadow Minister’s point—what the minimum wage for carers being referred to is; there are no sector-based minimum wage standards. The national living wage is currently £11.44 for people aged 21 or over. It is rising to £12.21 in April. International workers on a health and care visa are currently required to be paid £11.90. I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report before Parliament given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis, which will show the impact of changes in inwards migration. It will not be possible for that data to show the effect of this issue on net migration, as the figures will depend on other factors such as the number of people who choose to leave the UK, which might not be a result of care worker minimum wage requirements. It is also not clear whether the report would have to look at settled workers and other workers in the labour market as well as those who are on health and care visas. We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of international care workers recruited for just over a year, and that is because employers have been unable to demonstrate that they have genuine vacancies that would guarantee sufficient hours to meet salary requirements. The most recently published data and statistics show that in the year ending December 2024, the number of international care workers reduced by 91%. The work that the Home Office is doing with the Department of Health and Social Care is increasing the role of regional hubs, with £16 million going into them. Regional hubs play an important role in supporting workers who may have left an employer or lost a licence to find other employment. That reduces the dependency on recruiting from abroad because we are already using those who are here on those visas and wish to work, alongside continuing to recruit home-grown talent. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not fully aware that we are introducing the first fair pay agreement to the adult social care sector, so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. The Government will engage all those who draw upon care, as well as those who provide care. We will also consult local authorities, unions and others from across the sector. Fair pay agreements will empower worker representatives, employers and others to negotiate pay, and terms and conditions, in a responsible manner. Crucially, they will help to address the long-standing issues with sustainability of resource, recruitment and retention that we all know exist in the care sector. That will address the workforce crisis in that extremely important sector and so support the delivery of high-quality care. Fair pay agreements are an important first step towards a national care service. I hope that clarifies the Government’s position and why it will not be necessary to lay a report before Parliament—and that certainly should not be required under this legislation, which is about stopping criminal gangs in their awful trade. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause and engage in this debate in other ways.

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

  More

  I turn first to new clause 31, which is on EU citizens’ rights. It will confirm in law what the UK has in practice sought to do since the EU settlement scheme was established: to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the UK. Part of this is quite complicated, so it may be useful to try to simplify it. In order to meet free movement rules, those who were here as residents from the European Union before the end of the transition period, which was the end of December 2020, needed to have been financially self-sufficient, studying or working for the previous five years. That meant that they had the rights of permanent residence in the UK. If their family members, who may have been partners or children under the age of 21, were also here before the end of December 2020, then at that point—it was a bit like census day—it did not matter whether they were outside the UK; under permitted absence rules, they could have been abroad for whatever reason but coming back. The point is about the definition of meeting free movement rules. They were resident here and effectively living under EU law, so they would be eligible for rights under the EU withdrawal agreement. The issue is a technical one. There is a cohort described as the extra cohort, rather than the true cohort. The true cohort is those who were self-sufficient, studying or working, and therefore ticked all the boxes of meeting free movement rules. But those who, for example, were not in work on 31 December—they might have lost their job, or there was some other reason why they were not technically meeting the rules—are described as the extra cohort. While they were not technically meeting those free movement rules at that moment, we moved forward with citizens’ rights after we left the European Union at the end of the transition period by treating those two cohorts as the same, as if it had been census day. Those technicalities have meant that the withdrawal agreement rights apply completely to the true cohort, but arguably, given case law, have sometimes become a bit more complicated when applied to the extra cohort—who, as far as the UK is concerned, should be treated the same. It is important that we clarify in law that we treat the cohorts the same. At the end of December 2020 they might technically not have met all the definitions under the free movement rules, and therefore technically not have been complying with EU law, but for all intents and purposes they should still have their citizens’ rights. The source of those rights is the withdrawal agreement. New clause 31 clarifies that so that we do not have case law challenging it or defining it differently. It was always the UK’s intention to treat those cohorts the same, but as case law has evolved it has become more difficult in practice. I thank other parliamentarians, including those in the other place, and stakeholders who have raised this issue. We want to ensure that there is clarity in law and that what we intend is actually the case. It is better all round to make the position clear. New clause 31 will mean that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the EUSS who were resident in the UK before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020—I remind the Committee that we left the EU at the end of January 2020, but had the transition period until December 2020—will be considered beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement and accordingly have rights in UK law. That is regardless of whether they belong to what I have described as the true cohort—the vast majority, who were compliant with all aspects of the free movement rules—or whether they technically did not and fell within what we have called the extra cohort. The new clause means that they all be able to rely directly on the rights in the withdrawal agreement for as long as they hold EUSS status. I am sure that, like all of us, Dame Siobhain, you consider it important for your constituents to have clarity about their rights in law. The Government take citizens’ rights very seriously, and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement are properly implemented in the UK and the EU. The EUSS opened on 30 March 2019, when the withdrawal agreement was still in draft; some of us still remember those slightly heady days and late nights. From the start, the UK’s approach has been that, as the withdrawal agreement requires, all EU citizens resident in the UK before the cut-off date, which proved in the end to be the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, are eligible for the EUSS, irrespective of whether they resided in the UK in accordance with EU law at the end of 2020. The EUSS, our scheme in the UK, does not therefore assess whether, at the end of the transition period, the EU citizen was exercising treaty rights in the UK by being a worker, self-employed, a student or self-sufficient, or whether they had an EU law right of permanent residence here, possibly on the basis of having spent five years working here. The approach we took was fair and ensured a smooth transition. It was a priority for the whole of Parliament during that time that EU citizens with a right to be in the UK and British citizens in the EU did not have their lives disrupted by the consequences of Brexit. That approach has greatly simplified the operation of the EUSS, under which 5.7 million people now have status. It also simplified it for applicants and caseworkers. That is important, because we want consistency and accuracy in the processing of cases. Just by virtue of these technicalities, two cohorts of EU citizens and their family members have status under the EUSS: the true cohort, who derived their rights from the withdrawal agreement, and the extra cohort, who were not within scope of the withdrawal agreement for technical reasons and derived their rights from domestic legislation. The UK has sought as a matter of practice to treat those cohorts the same in how we have interpreted and treated those cases in relation to their status in the UK, but as case law has evolved, very small technical points have had consequences where rights have been derived technically from the withdrawal agreement or domestic legislation. The new clause will make the position clear in law. It removes the distinction in UK law between true and extra cohorts, making it clear that both are to be treated as if they were in scope of the withdrawal agreement at the end of the transition period in December 2020, meaning that they benefit from the rights contained in part 2 of the agreement.

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

  More

  Thank you, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to speak to these new clauses, and to acknowledge the genuine questions and important aspects that have been raised in the debate so far. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire and for Woking for tabling the amendments. Contributions also came from my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh and for Dover and Deal and from the Opposition. The point I want to make on this subject is in response to both new clauses, although I recognise the slight differences. New clause 1 seeks to require a strategy, laid before Parliament, for the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK, and new clause 6 seeks to require the Secretary of State to “make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes”. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said that he was pretty good at predicting the responses from colleagues. I gently suggest that I might say some things that he may not expect about certain aspects of the subject. That is because some parts of what we currently do have not been raised at all in the debate. They are in relation to safe and legal routes, and how they are working, outside the Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes. I want to go through those points because they are important. I also make a broad point in relation to, in particular, the comments and the question from the hon. Member for Woking about consideration and having a conversation. The Government will, as he knows, shortly set out our approach to immigration as part of considering how we bring down net migration, tackle abuse and put more controls in the system. The system has lost public confidence. I think we all know—the Conservatives themselves have acknowledged it—that we lost control of immigration. The system was and is chaotic. It is not just a problem in relation to how people feel about an immigration system that is not fair, controlled or managed; it is about the consequences for individuals, such as asylum seekers caught up in backlogs. Their lives are on hold until their claim is considered. It is important to return to the subject of the utter chaos that the whole system has been in, and why the Bill is important to what we are looking to do to strengthen our borders and go after the smuggling gangs, which hon. Members have mentioned. Those gangs do so much damage to the lives of migrants. They also undermine our border security and make money—millions—from putting lives at risk. It is important that we look at how we are tackling the demand. Several hon. Members made that important point. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire did not talk about going even further with what he is suggesting.

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

  More

  The hon. Member is right that views vary, but, in line with how the public see immigration, it is important that there should be a fair system that is controlled and well managed. It is extremely important for us to ensure we have controls around our system and not the utter chaos we saw under the last Government. Frankly, to say one thing and be doing almost the opposite is exactly what drives cynicism with politics and with control over immigration and our public services. On the questions that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) has raised, I should say that I am in contact with a number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and other colleagues in the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member will know our position because it is his colleagues who have raised the issue there. We will not be devolving immigration policy, because the issues that Scotland faces are the same issues faced in other areas. They also relate to labour market issues, whether that be pay, controls or conditions. It is important that we understand the issues, which is why I will visit Scotland in the near future. It is important to hear at first hand from those around the country, as we must have an immigration system that works for all parts of the United Kingdom. The migration system and the MIR is an important issue. I recognise the concerns raised by hon. Members on different sides today and in the many pieces of correspondence I have received on this topic from Members, many of whom are here today. We must understand the impact of any potential further changes and ensure that policy in this area has a firm evidence base. I look forward to receiving the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations in the summer, which I am sure will inform the next steps we take and the debate in Parliament and across the country.

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

  More

  As always, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to catch me after the debate. In relation to impact assessments, the previous Government published some initial analysis, which was referenced in the debate, on the volume impacts of the first stage of the minimum income requirement increase in December 2023, when the decision was announced. They committed to publishing the full analysis in the impact assessment, but that was not done when the rules changed or when the general election took place. Impact assessments are important to enable scrutiny of the impact of the increase of the MIR. That is why we published the regulatory and equalities impact assessments for net migration measures under the previous Government in September and paused any further increases while the Migration Advisory Committee reviews the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. Once the MAC report has been received, a further equalities impact assessment will be completed to inform any further changes that are made. To conclude, I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. The Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and value the contribution that those from overseas make to our economy, public services and civic life. We recognise that that needs to be balanced as part of a fair, managed and controlled migration system.

• 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.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Workplace Pay Gaps · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; her views and her voice are very much heard in this place. A number of these issues go across Government Departments, and I encourage her to continue to engage with other Ministers on this. Hon. Members have raised issues relating to pregnant women and new mothers. Pregnant women and new mothers deserve to know that the law is on their side. We will put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who return to work for a six-month period after they return, except in specific circumstances. Strengthening the legislation in this area is an important part of how we are continuing to take our programmes forward in a way that is good for our economy, society and families. Returning to ethnicity and disability in relation to employment and pay gaps, introducing mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting will provide transparency and the vital data to help businesses to identify and address pay gaps within their workforces and identify and remove barriers to progression. It will shine a light on the businesses taking welcome steps to promote the talents of ethnic minority and disabled workers while holding to account those who neglect to do so and make progress. The Equality (Race and Disability) Bill will enshrine in law the full right to equal pay for ethnic minority and disabled people, and we will seek to remove barriers to redress for claimants. These measures are not just about diversity and inclusion, as hon. Members have commented: they make good economic sense. Evidence shows that the adoption of such policies leads to improved productivity, improved rates of progression and retention, and profitability. Our analysis in opposition indicated that closing the employment gap faced by ethnic minority people could add almost £36 billion to our economy. Anyone who is familiar with pay gap reporting knows, however, that the changes that we are making are not simple. These are complex matters with numerous challenges, whether it be disclosure rates, for which we will be producing more guidance, or the granularity of reporting. That is why we have listened to stakeholders when it comes to introducing the measures, and we continue to listen about how we will make this work in practice. That will be part of an important set of consultations that we are to undertake this year, including roundtable discussions over the next few months. I look forward to attending my first one, in collaboration with ShareAction, early in March. As for when we will introduce legislation, we have committed to publishing the draft legislation in this parliamentary Session. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East, we will bring forward the consultation shortly. That will be an opportunity for many of the issues to be raised in wider dialogue as we move forward with our plans. On closing the employment gap and on best or good practice in workplaces, the “Get Britain Working” White Paper was published by the Department for Work and Pensions in November last year. It was a groundbreaking piece of cross-Government work. It sets out the details of reform to employment support to help tackle rising economic inactivity levels and to support people into good work, creating an inclusive labour market, all of which is part of the backdrop for how we make legislation more impactful in workplaces. That includes a new service to support more people to get into work and to help them get on in work. Local “Get Britain Working” plans across England will be led by mayors and local areas and will include a youth guarantee—for all people aged 18 to 21 in England—for education, training or help to find work. I encourage Members to engage in such activity as we take it forward. We are also making changes to existing reporting requirements further to ensure that employers are taking the steps we need to narrow their gender pay gaps. It is absolutely right to say that progress on reducing the UK gender pay gap has stagnated, and we need employers to take action to change that. Organisations have been reporting data since 2017, but with employers encouraged to publish action plans voluntarily. Analysis in 2019, however, found that only half of employers had produced details of the actions that they had developed or implemented to address their gender pay gap. As part of the Employment Rights Bill introduced to Parliament in October last year, action plans will become a requirement. They will ensure that organisations are taking effective steps to improve gender equality in their workplace, and we continue to engage on how we will make them most effective. This will also focus minds on steps, for example, to support employees during the menopause and will introduce much-needed accountability into reporting. Finally, the Government are acting in a number of ways to act on the drivers of pay gaps and to secure fairness more broadly in our workplaces. The landmark Employment Rights Bill contains robust measures to safeguard working people, including protections from sexual harassment and enhanced rights for pregnant workers, as well as measures that have the potential to change workplace culture for the better, with the elements I mentioned to do with flexible working and expanded day one rights. We have an ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, and will empower working people and deliver economic growth. That is why we are working at pace across Government to make this agenda a reality. Over 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and almost 15 years after the Equality Act 2010, I am proud that we are now taking action at pace. In closing, I again thank all hon. Members for their contributions this morning.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  We are determined to honour our commitment to those who supported us in Afghanistan and who stood up for freedom and democracy, placing their own lives at risk. To date, the Afghan schemes have brought over 32,000 people to safety in the UK, including thousands through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. We aim to continue to relocate eligible individuals through our established schemes as quickly as possible.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The draft order will introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Before I explain the services, I will provide the Committee with some background on the Home Office’s fee structure. In order for the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets a maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are then set in separate secondary legislation, the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure. Fees for the services we seek to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, which include family, skilled worker, settlement and student, where the requirements of that route require an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level, or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. An applicant can demonstrate in a number of ways their proficiency in the English language, oneof which is to use an academic qualification obtained in English awarded by an educational establishment outside the UK. Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, those must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd is our third-party supplier, which provides those services through a concession contract with the Home Office. It has been providing the services for more than a decade. This is not a new requirement being introduced for applicants on the work, study and nationality routes. The requirement for applicants to use those services has been specified in the immigration rules since 2008. Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through its website and pay the appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment, unless the applicant opts for an optional fast-track service, and about 30 working days for the qualification equivalency assessment. The use of the assessment is not limited to the Home Office and the visa application. The maximum fee we are setting in the draft order for the qualification equivalency and the English language proficiency assessment is being set at £400. That will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at their current levels, which are £140 for the English language assessment and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximums above that level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing the services. I will now turn to the question of why the Home Office is bringing forward legislation to regulate the fees now, when they are already being charged and where neither the nature of the service itself nor the requirements in the immigration rules have changed. In the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, however, the Department identified that the fees should have already been regulated due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified that fact, the Department sought to legislate at the earliest opportunity; legislation had originally been considered for the summer, but was postponed due to the general election. That is why we are working to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing in future. Hon. Members will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the explanatory memorandum that was published alongside this order. In its report published on 10 October, the Committee raised concerns that the explanatory memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement of why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the importance of transparency in the Department’s interactions with Parliament, including in the explanatory memorandums that it lays alongside legislation. I also recognise the Committee’s view that a fuller explanation of the context of the legislation and the associated issue was required in this case, including the status of and approach to fees charged prior to the appropriate regulations’ being brought into force. As I set out in my response to the correspondence from the Committee on 15 October, in which I responded in some detail, some of which we are covering in my speech today, the treatment of those previously charged fees is also subject to a range of complex and ongoing considerations, which makes the position fundamentally uncertain at this stage. It includes exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing. Although I am not yet in a position to confirm the specific approach to be taken on this issue, the options under consideration have the potential to impact fundamentally the bearing of the previously charged fees. Given that uncertainty, I did not consider that it would be appropriate or helpful to go into further detail on this point in the explanatory memorandum, which is otherwise clear on the necessity of laying legislation to put the fees on a statutory footing and the rationale for the specific provisions being made. I will, however, emphasise again that I take the Department’s responsibilities in respect of parliamentary transparency seriously, and assure hon. Members that we are taking forward those considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority. It is important to note that all fees paid were on receipt of services that were also received. Finally, I would like to be clear that although the purpose of the order is to put the fees on a statutory footing, it is the first of two statutory instruments that need to be laid to ensure that future fees are charged for these services with the appropriate legislation in place. Our intention is, subject to the approval of this order by the House, to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in December that will set fee levels.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It may be more helpful for me to write to the shadow Minister on a number of his questions. However, I thank him for his constructive response in that this issue pre-dated the general election, and, for clarity, it is important that we move forward in the way that has been proposed. It is important to say that, as I have outlined, we are still considering the best approach to take in relation to legislation or other responses to the issue retrospectively. As a result, it is a bit more challenging to announce a timetable for legislation when there is still an important process to go through, but I am happy to keep the shadow Minister informed—in writing, if need be. It is worth saying a couple of points in response to the shadow Minister. Over the lifespan of this order, immigration fees will be kept under review and will be updated within the parameters that we have set. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by the House, and will be accompanied by an economic assessment. It is helpful to remind Members that this order will not put fees for the services on a statutory footing; it is the first of two pieces of required secondary legislation, the second being the amendment to the 2018 regulations that we expect to lay in December, subject to Parliament’s approving this order. The regulations will set the fees for immigration and nationality-related services provided by Ecctis at the level that customers are currently charged. Question put and agreed to.