Seema Malhotra MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights a crucial point about the importance of evidence-based policy and of good data, which was sorely lacking across the whole immigration system when we came into office. The utter chaos, with backlogs in every part of the system, put huge pressure on it and made it much harder to get information about where the backlogs were and who was in them in order to try to exert some control over the system and get that important data to inform future policy. My hon. Friend is right to point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which continues to do important work to engage with stakeholders and to work across Government. That is an important part of the work that we are doing to use evidence in a much better way to inform how we link skills policy and visa policy. The work to restore order to our immigration system has been under way since we came into office. We will set out our approach, as he has intimated, in our upcoming immigration White Paper. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to explain why we will not support the amendment, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Stockton West may wish to withdraw it.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Woking for tabling new clause 16, which would exempt the NHS from paying the immigration skills charge when recruiting skilled workers. I recognise that the intention is to protect the NHS and reduce the cost of recruiting those vital health and care professionals. As we all know, they do a fantastic and important job for all our constituents and families in looking after the wellbeing of people across the UK. It is worth recognising, however, that the new clause would run contrary to the Government’s position that we should reduce our reliance on international workers in all sectors of the UK economy, including the NHS. The clue to what the immigration skills charge is for and why we have it is in the word “skills”, so removing it would send the wrong message. We would be removing an important tool to encourage employers to look first at the domestic labour market and at what more could be done to train and improve the skills of people already in the UK, rather than looking outside it and continuing our reliance on overseas trained workers to support our public services. In the light of what the immigration skills charge is for—to help and support the development of skills and, therefore, to support the growth of our skills and talent in the UK—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider and withdraw the new clause.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dame Siobhain, and to contribute to Bill Committee proceedings on this important piece of legislation. I will briefly state the purpose and effect of the clause before I make some more detailed remarks. The purpose of the clause is to ensure retrospective power for the charging of fees currently provided on behalf of the Home Office and the Department for Education in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK from any time to the point at which the Bill comes into force. The effect of the clause is that fees charged by, or under, arrangements with the Secretary of State in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK will have been charged lawfully. I will now lay out how this situation came about. In spring 2024, under the previous Administration, an issue was identified with the legal arrangements to charge fees for three services provided by a third-party supplier on behalf of the Home Office and the DFE. Those are the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, the Department for Education’s UK European network of information centres services, and the Department for Education’s non-UK early years qualifications recognition service. A statutory basis for those fees has not been in place for a part, or the whole, of the period of their being charged. Although we do not have an exact date from which that may have run, the estimate is from around 2008 to the present day. Regulations have been made for the charging of services recently for the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, and are being made for the Department for Education’s UK ENIC services. The fee for the non-UK early years qualifications recognition service was removed. We are bringing forward the clause to ensure that fees charged before the Bill comes into force are lawful. We recognise that retrospective legislation should be used with caution, however, we consider that there are important reasons for it in this case, and indeed, that it was assumed that there was a legal basis for those fees in the past. In considering whether retrospective legislation is the right approach, it is important to be clear that customers who paid a fee received a service that they were able to use as part of, for example, a visa or nationality application, or to understand the comparability of qualifications to support access to education or work. Other options, such as repaying fees, would require placing a considerable and unfair financial burden on UK taxpayers, who have not, on the whole, directly benefited financially from income generated by these services. That is why we believe that this measure is the right course of action to ensure that there is no doubt about the charges being lawful while protecting taxpayer money and Government resource. I repeat the fundamental point that a service was received for the fee that was paid. It is important to make sure that we learn lessons and ensure that that situation does not happen again. Both Departments now have robust guidance and processes in place to support policy leads where legislative powers are needed to support the charging of fees in relation to the provision of public services.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for this important debate, Dame Siobhain. It is probably the fourth time we have discussed this matter. I want to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will be aware—perhaps this is one point I can acknowledge that he would have predicted my response—that we will not be introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy. This has also been a discussion that we have had, and a point that we have made to the Scottish Government. In my remarks, I will perhaps make a few points that will be useful for his ongoing deliberations on this issue, and suggest how he may direct them towards working with the Scottish Government on some matters that it may be useful for him to be aware of. The key point is that we must work together to address the underlying causes of skills shortages and overseas recruitment in different parts of the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we believe net migration must come down—under the last Government, it more than trebled and reached a record high of over 900,000 in the year to June 2023. Immigration is a reserved matter, on which we work in the interest of the whole of the UK. The previous schemes that we have talked about have succeeded only in restricting movement and rights, and creating internal UK borders. Adding different rules for different locations will also increase complexity and create friction when workers move locations.

• 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 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. The scheme will provide an additional 18 months’ temporary permission to Ukrainians here under one of the existing Ukraine schemes. When a person’s Ukraine scheme leave expires during their course and they are granted further leave to remain—for example, on a student visa—they will continue to be able to complete their studies. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Migration Levels: Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to bringing down net migration after it hit record highs under the last Government. We will do that by taking a different approach, linking skills and migration policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to tackling workforce problems in the UK. The Home Office publishes migrant journey analysis, which shows the proportion of migrants granted indefinite leave to remain over time, helping to inform on who might seek to remain in the UK in the long term.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Immigration and Nationality Statistics · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some remarks; I know the hon. Lady has already contributed. That is why we are pursuing a new approach to end the overreliance on international recruitment by ensuring that the immigration, skills and training systems are properly aligned in a way they have not previously been. Further details of our plans to reduce net migration will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. I am sure the hon. Member for West Suffolk will want to contribute and bring his own experience in government, which I do respect. I am sure he will also want to engage on how we build the solutions and the architecture that we need for a new part of how Government works, working across the Home Office, skills and our future needs, as well as on how we ensure that we are supporting migrants into work, which is also part of the role of the DWP. Let me turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. It is worth saying that the issue of dangerous small boat crossings has been a phenomenon of the last five or six years. There has been an increase from 300 people coming in 2018 to an average of over 36,000 a year in the last three years—a 120-fold increase. We cannot deny that, in a few short years, an entire criminal smuggler industry has been built around boat crossings, and that has also been allowed to take hold across the UK border. The cost of the asylum system also increased by more than five times to £5.4 billion between 2019-20 and last year. Returns of those with no right to be here are 30% lower than they were in 2010, and asylum-related returns were down by 20% compared with 14 years ago. That was the legacy we inherited from the previous Government, and former Ministers themselves have admitted it was shameful. On the calls for more data, the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics publish a very wide range of statistical information on a regular basis. Our country’s statisticians, and those working in my Department and other Departments, are in fact world leaders in the production of statistics and analysis on the topic of migration. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the UK publishes, I believe, more statistics on migration than any other country. The content and presentation of official statistics is kept under review and that regular oversight allows us to balance the production of regular statistics with the need to develop new statistics and statistical products for future release. We remain committed to the issues of transparency and ensuring that public and parliamentary debates are informed by robust and accurate statistics, and to keeping statistics under review. The hon. Member for West Suffolk raised a few comments on some of his correspondence and it would be helpful to refer to some of that. I assure him that the Home Office has received his letter of 1 September and is due to respond in due course. The breakdown of £700 million in costs, which the hon. Member inquired about, has been published on gov.uk and sets out the cost of the Rwanda partnership and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which were inseparable. The purpose of the IMA was to prevent individuals arriving in the UK from remaining here, and Rwanda was intended to be a vehicle for enabling that. To try and separate them is deliberately misrepresenting the true cost of what was clearly a failed policy.

• 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.

• 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.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Scottish Visa Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on a number of occasions. He will be aware that we are not introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy, and this has been made clear to the Scottish Government. Instead, we must together address the underlying causes of skills shortages and overseas recruitment in different parts of the UK, which this Government are doing.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to bringing down legal migration. We will do so by making sure that British workers are upskilled in key sectors, with new requirements for employers to address skills shortages, and by introducing new training and workforce plans so that overseas recruitment does not remain the default for filling skills shortages in the UK.

• 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.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman, and will come on to that point. I will deal first with questions around the expansion of the BNO route, in particular to people born between 1979 and 1997. A number of Members have suggested that the BNO route should be expanded to include those who were children at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997 but whose parents did not register them for BNO status. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic commitment to those who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status, and we continue to uphold those commitments. Those not eligible for the BNO route need to consider other available UK immigration routes, for example as a student, graduate or skilled worker. I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to make any policy commitments in this forum, but I want to give assurances that I will take their comments away and consider the points that have been raised today. I will also address the point about criminality. The standard immigration rules on criminality and other adverse behaviours apply to applications through the BNO route. However, all applications are carefully assessed against the latest country information, and guidance for caseworkers provides flexibility to ensure that overseas convictions for offences—particularly those not recognised in the UK—do not result in the automatic refusal of an application. I am aware of the concerns of those applying through the BNO route, and of the risk of their being refused on suitability grounds because of a conviction for what I think we can describe as politically motivated or trumped-up criminal charges in Hong Kong. I assure hon. Members that I am keeping the issue under review. On the question of access to services, I thank hon. Members for their comments about the Government’s welcome programme, which we have remained committed to and which is now entering its fourth year of funding. That very important programme enables Hongkongers to access support on a range of issues, including employment, education, housing and the English language. It helps them seek employment, build skills and learn more about life in the UK so they can play a bigger part in their local communities. As the shadow Minister said, there is currently £1 million of funding for voluntary and community-sector organisations to deliver projects focused on employability and mental health and wellbeing. The Growth Company has been funded to deliver the Jobs for Hongkongers initiative, which will help BNOs in England find employment. I am aware of other good examples. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) talked about a scheme, and I would be interested to hear more about how those local initiatives are working. International fees are a concern for those on the BNO route, who can study and work in virtually any capacity. Generally, to be eligible for student support, home fee status and fee caps, a student must have settled status in the UK, and ordinarily they must have been resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of their course. The majority of BNO status holders will be able to qualify for home fee status and student finance once they have obtained settlement in the UK, subject to meeting the normal eligibility requirements. The eligibility criteria apply to all students, except persons granted international protection by the Home Office, but I have heard what hon. Members have said today. On the Mandatory Provident Fund, hon. Members raised the very serious matter of the estimated £3 billion of funds alleged to have been frozen. We know that individuals who have chosen to take up the BNO visa route have difficulty drawing down early their pensions held in the Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund. Although documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early are a matter for the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has raised the issue directly with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. We have urged them to facilitate the early drawdown of funds, as is the case for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently, and we have made it clear that such discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable. I will certainly keep that under review. On security, we take the protection of Hongkongers’ rights, freedoms and safety in the UK very seriously, and we continue to assess potential threats in the UK. We work closely across Government, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement bodies, to protect persons identified as being at risk and ensure the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. I want to be clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and the other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. We will challenge where we must to protect our national security and values. We are also working to improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses through an audit of the UK’s relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor. It is also worth saying in response to the cyber-security issues that have been raised that the National Security Act 2023 gives the police new powers to protect the public from these malign threats, including those actions that amount to transnational repression—I take the point about the need for a clear definition. The Act brings together vital new measures to protect the UK’s national security, creating a whole suite of measures to enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern state threats.

• 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 thank my hon. Friend for making that serious point, one that I will draw on in my remarks. I will continue to work with him and others on how we tackle that serious issue. Migration has been an important part of the history of our nation, as was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will know, as I do, that for generations people have travelled here from all over the world, contributing to our economy, studying in our universities, working in our public services and being part of our communities and the way we have built our nation together. All of us here are alive to the demographic challenges that remote communities particularly are facing. We are also committed to ensuring that the immigration system works in the interests of the whole of the UK. We have seen net migration treble in five years, driven largely by a big increase in overseas recruitment. We are clear that net migration must come down, and that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed. I make that point because it is for that reason we are setting out a new approach, which is integral to tackling some of the challenges outlined today. We will link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Rural Depopulation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I was pleased to visit Australia very briefly in May to talk about the work that is being done on skills there. I think it would help him to know that we have announced a new council of the nations and regions, and we are starting the process of establishing local growth plans and encouraging local authorities to take on more devolved power. He may want to contribute to some of those discussions. I do not wish to test your patience, Ms Vaz, so I will conclude.