Seema Malhotra MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and congratulate him on securing this important debate. I also thank my colleagues from across the House who have contributed. There has been an important focus today on statistics, which I welcome because this Government believe in making good use of facts and evidence when delivering policy. Various points have been raised, and I want to come back to all of them, but, if I do miss any, I hope that Members will allow me to respond to some of their points in writing. I also recognise that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), is unable to be here today. Before I address Members’ points, I want to make a few remarks reflecting on the immigration system that the Government inherited. The hon. Member for West Suffolk alluded to the situation that we found, and it is worth reflecting on what the latest official figures show because they shocked us all. Under the previous Government, net migration grew almost five times higher in four years—and is still four times higher—-than it was before the pandemic, driven heavily by an increase in overseas recruitment. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have both been extremely clear that net migration needs to come down. We are, therefore, continuing with visa controls, which we supported when they were introduced by the previous Government. However, we are also clear that much more needs to be done to restore order and credibility to the system. That is why—

• 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.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman can come back in a moment. The proposal to send asylum applicants to Rwanda was impractical, costly and would not have worked to reduce irregular migration. We believe in dealing with these issues with common sense in the work we have been undertaking: making sure we have a new Border Security Command and Border Security Commander, working upstream, building new partnerships with other countries and doing that in order to also disrupt the supply chains of criminal gangs, who the hon. Member for West Suffolk knows are undermining our border security and putting lives at risk. We will continue to spend taxpayer money on real solutions such as breaking the business models of those criminal gangs. In fact, when we made it clear that the Rwanda partnership would come to an end, we saw, for example, the repurposing of two flights provisionally booked for Rwanda, which were used to return a number of individuals to their home countries instead.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I said, we do keep our statistics under review. He will also know that a lot of research on the cost and benefit of migration has been done by the Migration Advisory Committee, and its annual report, published this week, is another example of the work it is doing, with its capacity expanding to help us address some of the challenges of bringing net migration down alongside having a more coherent policy for how we do that across Government. Indeed, the recent estimate of the average contribution of skilled workers is also demonstrated in the report. I will make this point before I finish: the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know that the Ministry of Justice does publish data on foreign national offenders in the UK in its official statistics. He will also know that we have seen a 21% increase in foreign criminals being removed from the UK, compared to the same period last year. That sends a clear message to foreign criminals that if they break the law, they will not be allowed to stay in the UK. I recognise the importance of the debate and the issues that have been raised today. I thank the hon. Member for raising them and we will respond to him in due course. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 18 Dec 2024 · Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities · Hansard source

  More

  Islamophobia, sexism and racism have no place in our society, and my hon. Friend will be aware that we have committed to strengthening protections against dual discrimination. The Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is working on addressing hate crime against Muslim women. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend’s Committee will be undertaking work on the specific challenges facing Muslim women in the UK today, and I look forward to following that work.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to breaking down the barriers of opportunity for all, and to race equality throughout Government, so that our missions deliver for everyone. We are working on our plans to legislate to introduce mandatory ethnicity pay group reporting for large employers, and to enshrine in law the right to equal pay for ethnic minority people. Those measures were announced as part of the draft Equality (Race and Disability) Bill, on which we will consult early next year.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady will be aware that it is illegal to discriminate in the way she has described. I will certainly ensure that her question is followed up with the relevant colleagues.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises a vital issue on behalf of his constituents. The cross-Government approach that we are taking to tackle the root causes of health inequalities is central to our health mission, and includes prioritising prevention and shifting care closer to communities. On type 2 diabetes, the NHS has developed a focused engagement campaign to raise awareness among groups that are most likely to develop that condition. He may wish to connect with that campaign.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The death and destruction in Gaza are intolerable. Palestinians who wish to join family members in the UK must do so via the range of existing routes that are available, but if my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific matter with me, I shall be happy to meet her.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The death and destruction in Gaza are intolerable, and I assure her that that application is being looked at very closely and she should be receiving an update very soon.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and for all her work for those who are here from Afghanistan. We continue to seek to email and notify all individuals currently resettled in the UK whom we are aware of, and I will certainly continue to discuss with her the methods we are using for those facing other issues.

• 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.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important and informative debate, and indeed for the work that he and colleagues across the House are now doing in the Petitions Committee. I am grateful to him and to colleagues for taking part today. I want to start by saying that I totally agree with the sentiment underlying so many of the contributions—that everyone should be able to work free from fear and exploitation, and that there should be absolutely no place for hate crime or sentiments from anybody, anywhere in the country. I am sure that all hon. Members across this House take those issues extremely seriously. I will address several of the issues raised—including tackling the exploitation that we see regarding this route, taking a preventive approach, ensuring trust, making sure that there are escape routes for people if they feel locked in with their employers, and many others—in my remarks this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Congleton (Mrs Russell), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for their contributions today. The Government do recognise the vital contribution that health and care professionals from overseas make to our NHS and in social care, and indeed to the wider health and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford speaks with great personal experience, having worked as a nurse. I know that he, like me, will want to congratulate our mutual friend, Bejoy Sebastian, a critical care nurse, who was recently elected as president of the Royal College of Nursing. Bejoy is a true example of the incredibly important contribution that is made to our wider health sector. Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care worker visa, which recognises the crucial contribution that international healthcare workers make, and this Government have kept that offer. The health and care worker visa provides significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Most applicants can expect a decision within three weeks of enrolling biometrics. Applicants are also exempt from having to pay the immigration health surcharge. Those benefits apply to not only the main applicants but their dependants, which I hope is a sign of how much we value the role that those coming here play in our health and care services. The United Kingdom’s offer to health and care professionals continues to be strong, competing with those of other countries in attracting health and care professionals who may want to work overseas. However, as several hon. Members have said, it is important in that context that we look at net migration overall. Under the previous Government, net migration trebled in five years, driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment. Our Government are clear that net migration must come down, and we are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK to support that effort. That is why the Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. That will be important in ensuring that people have opportunities to gain new skills and access these important jobs, as part of enabling the Government’s broader agenda. Although I appreciate the arguments about granting health and care workers settlement after two years, the system must be fair to all users. That is why it would not be right to allow health and care workers to qualify after two years, when skilled workers, including those in other much-needed sectors with global demand, would need to wait until they had completed five years on a work route before they were eligible to apply for settlement. Settlement in the UK is a privilege and not an automatic entitlement. In determining the qualifying period, the Government have to balance what is fair to all applicants with ensuring that individual applicants are able to continue the skilled work they have been issued a visa for, which often aligns so much with their passions and, in this case, with the deep compassion that so many will bring. We must ensure that the period is of a reasonable length, while also recognising the potential impact on public funds of granting settlement sooner. On balance, the Government consider that five years is the right length of time for people to demonstrate a reasonable contribution to their sector, as well as their commitment to the UK. That is why we have no plans to reduce the length of time that health and care workers, or other skilled workers, need to complete in the UK in order to apply for settlement. In terms of examples elsewhere, France offered frontline workers fast-track citizenship in 2020 during the covid-19 pandemic, and other countries have offered short-term visas for roles in high-demand sectors. The French offer appeared to go wider than those just in health and social care, but the scheme appears no longer to be operating. So there are examples where there can be short-term changes, but those changes may also come to an end. However, it is right that we tackle the issues underlying the sentiment behind the petition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe powerfully outlined. In my remaining remarks, I want to tackle some of those issues, and particularly those related to displaced workers and exploitation. I was asked what the Government are doing to more effectively tackle some of the exploitation we have seen, and it is worth laying out some of the protections that are now in place. In March 2024, there was rightly a change to sponsor guidance so that sponsors would need to be carrying out regulated activity and be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Home Office has continued to act against unscrupulous sponsors and has highlighted bad practices to the sector. It continues to share concerns and intelligence related to bad practice, and since July 2022 has revoked 452 sponsor licences in the care sector, for reasons including underpayment of salary and failing to provide workers with enough hours to maintain salary levels. For those individuals whose employer’s licence has been revoked, the Home Office has established a joint venture with the Department of Health and Social Care and with directors of social care operating in regional hubs in England, whereby the Department has funded a process allowing the hubs to find alternative employment for those in that position. Further information can be found on the Government website. The scheme has been implemented on an exceptional basis because of the exploitative practices that have been identified in the sector, and to provide protections to victims of those practices. Concerns regarding potentially unethical and illegal employment practices should be reported to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which will investigate fully. Information on reporting those issues can also be found on the GLAA website. Colleagues on both sides of the House raised the important issue of having a single enforcement body. In their plan to make work pay, the Government set out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, that they empower working people and that they deliver economicgrowth. The Government also introduced the Employment Rights Bill on 10 October 2024. It is important that we talk about this issue in the context of improving rights and protections for all workers. It is also important to recognise that workers may want to change employer because of exploitation, even though their sponsor may not have lost its sponsor licence. Any worker on the health and care worker visa is able to seek alternative employment, provided they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor, and to make a new application. They are free to do that at any time, and they do not need their employer’s permission to move jobs. We strongly encourage health and care worker visa holders who think they are being exploited—whether they have concerns about pay, working rights or working hours—to come forward and report those concerns to us using the pay and work rights complaints section on the Government website. First and foremost, any worker who believes that they may be in danger should also contact the police. If a migrant working in care has left their job because of exploitation, they should contact their regional support officer, so that they can help them try to find alternative employment. That includes people who have yet to have their visa cancelled. In the context of some of the protections we have in place and the ability to move employer, the Government have no plans to extend the period allowed to workers who have lost their jobs, as that could leave them unable to work and support themselves for longer, increasing the risk of destitution or of becoming trapped in illegal working situations. It is also important to recognise the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Bournemouth East, among others, that staff retention in the care sector remains a long-standing issue that the sector needs to address. That is why we are committed to ending long-term reliance on overseas recruitment by linking our migration, skills and labour market policies, as I mentioned. That includes improving working conditions and bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as health and care. That is why it is important that we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and are looking at the fair work agency becoming a single enforcement body. However, I recognise that there is still much more to do. The Government will continue to monitor care worker access to the immigration system and act to stop exploitation in the care sector. We do not plan to make any changes to the immigration system at this time, but we will act if needed. In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing this valuable debate, and all those who have spoken. There is no doubt about the important role that health and care staff, and the sector in which they work, play in all our constituencies in supporting communities. This is a matter about which Members on both sides of the House care passionately, as has been demonstrated today. I assure Members that we will reflect carefully on this debate and on the points that have been raised. We will continue to do all we can to support those in our health and care sector and to ensure their safety.

• 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.

• 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.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Black History Month · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure and an honour to close today’s debate and to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). Our paths have crossed on several occasions in recent years. I thank her for her contributions and her powerful summary of the debate; I will not repeat it, but I support everything she said. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) and for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for their opening speeches and for the inspiration for this debate. I am incredibly proud that this is the first Black History Month debate to be held in Government time in the Chamber—long may that continue. The shadow Minister said that it was an example of the House at its best. I agree: it has been one of the finest debates that I have heard in a long time. We can probably all agree that we have learned something new today. I pay tribute to colleagues who have made maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) outlined a very star-studded Labour history in his speech, but he also told a powerful story of his own experience that I know moved the whole House. I am sure that all those great Labour figures and all his predecessors will feel great pride in watching him take his place in this House and being a powerful voice for people with disabilities, and particularly children. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) made a humorous but powerful speech that told a story of family and of service in many different ways. It is clear that he is a living tribute to the last Labour Government and to what we sought to achieve through opportunity for all. It was also very clever of him to talk about his campaign to improve his constituency’s roads while the Roads Minister was present to hear his advocacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) made an incredibly powerful speech. She walked us around Suffolk Coastal, taking in nature and biodiversity and giving us a strong sense of her drive in her politics. She told the extremely powerful story of her experience as a carer for her mother; as someone who has had that responsibility for my mother, I can understand how much of a challenge that continues to be. I am sure that she will make an incredibly powerful contribution to this House, promoting support for people with dementia and their families. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and congratulate him on his achievement for the Liberal Democrats. He recognised the staff of this House, mentioning Margaret and Godfrey; we have also had references to Ugbana Oyet, our Serjeant at Arms. I think that is an indication of how we think about this whole House—not only the pride we feel in now having the most diverse Parliament, but how we look to share the opportunities for careers in this place, in every part of its work. I believe that holding this debate in Government time is a mark of how the new Labour Government are putting equality at the heart of all we do. I am proud to have been appointed the Minister for race equality in our equalities team, alongside my responsibilities as the Minister for migration and citizenship. We have celebrated Black History Month since the 1980s, and it has moved from the fringes to the mainstream across our schools, colleges and workplaces. Our understanding of history is constantly evolving as new scholarship reveals new stories, new narratives and new truths and enhances our understanding of the experience of the black community in the UK. We have heard from colleagues across the House, including the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and my hon. Friends the Members for Luton North (Sarah Owen), for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). Their stories, and those of their constituencies and constituents, have enhanced the House’s understanding. They are important because they teach us about ourselves and our national story. The purpose of Black History Month is to amplify black history, not confine it to four weeks. This is the story of all of us. The UK has a unique history and a unique set of global relationships and identities built on our shared language, our trade, our cultural heritage and our shared history—and we must be honest about our history. We must confront the difficult truths about the transatlantic slave trade, colonialisation, and racism at home and abroad. My parents were immigrants who came to the UK in the 1960s. Both had been refugees as young children. We grew up above our family shop in Hounslow: we were a family of eight, with three generations living together. This was the time of the National Front, and racist comments were regularly experienced as we went about our daily life. My family’s community values, compassion, commitment to neighbours and pride in Britain contributed to my becoming the first woman ever elected to the constituency of Feltham and Heston, where I grew up, and the first female MP of Punjabi origin in the House of Commons. We have made progress. The Race Relations Act 1968, introduced by a Labour Government, made racial discrimination illegal in employment, housing and public services. Recent scholarship about the British empire has helped our appreciation and understanding. We must understand the past to navigate the future. Black History Month allows us to hear the voices of millions of black Britons down the centuries. We celebrate some of the greatest: the trailblazers, the campaigners, the innovators and the pioneers, some of whom have been mentioned today. From Ignatius Sancho to Olaudah Equiano, from the Chartist William Cuffay to Mary Seacole, from Walter Tull to Claudia Jones, and from Bill Morris to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, they were all icons, leaders and change makers of their time. Black and minority ethnic communities have made contributions to our politics, our public services, our NHS, our business industry, our armed forces and our sports—in fact, every aspect of our public life. I am incredibly proud that we have the most diverse Parliament on record and that we have more women elected to this House than ever before. I have covered some of the issues that Members across the House have raised, but let me mention a couple more. The Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North, made a powerful point about intersectionality. Labour’s manifesto committed to strengthening protections against dual discrimination; we will do so by bringing into force the dual discrimination provision in section 14 of the Equality Act 2010. People hold multiple protected characteristics, and we acknowledge that some people experience discrimination because of a combination of those protected characteristics. I know that you have done very important work on the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the important work of Wendy Williams, whose Windrush lessons learned review exposed systemic injustices as a result of previous Governments’ actions. The Windrush scandal saw Windrush and Commonwealth communities who had and have the right to live in this country being victimised because, through no fault of their own, they were unable to prove that right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead outlined, today the Home Secretary has updated the House in a written ministerial statement on the Government’s progress in fulfilling our manifesto commitments to the Windrush generation, to ensure that they quickly and efficiently receive the support that they deserve. The Home Secretary is at a Windrush stake- holders’ roundtable this afternoon at the Black Cultural Archives. Additionally, we are reigniting the vital transformation work from the Windrush lessons learned review to embed lasting changes in how the Department serves all communities. While we were in opposition, we made it clear that the Windrush scandal must never be repeated. The last Government’s response was far too slow and far too weak, and it did not deliver justice to those who were betrayed and failed. That is why I am also proud that we will appoint a Windrush commissioner, an independent advocate for all those affected, who can represent the views of the Windrush communities and victims at the highest Government levels. The commissioner’s role will be to oversee the delivery of the compensation scheme and the implementation of the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, and to act as a trusted voice for families and communities. For many people, filing a claim can be intimidating and can require them to revisit past traumas. That is why we are injecting £1.5 million into a programme of grant funding for organisations to provide essential advocacy and support for applicants who need additional help with the application process. We also brought in a new single caseworker process, which was implemented in July, in direct response to stakeholder and victim feedback. It has streamlined the process, improving consistency, increasing transparency and removing duplication that led to avoidable delays. It will give clarity and consistency to applicants, so they know who is dealing with their case throughout the process. As promised, we have re-established a Windrush unit in the Home Office, dedicated to driving forward the action needed. The new unit stands ready to support the Windrush commissioner, when appointed. We are determined to ensure the renewed work drives enduring change that matters to the Windrush community and has a wider impact across the whole Department and across Government. Last month, I had the privilege of visiting the National Windrush Museum with its director, Denize Ledeatte. It is a new institution dedicated to collecting and preserving the stories of the Windrush generation. The passion of those I met, including Windrush pioneers, is matched only by the lasting impact that I know the museum, its deep research and these stories will have on future generations. I look forward to attending the Windrush National Organisation conference tomorrow. We stand on the shoulders of giants, and we do so to build a better and more inclusive future for all. I am proud that our Bill on equality in race and disability will mandate ethnic pay gap reporting for large employers, helping to tackle inequalities and discrimination in the workplace. Our Employment Rights Bill, which we introduced within our first 100 days, will end exploitative practices and enhance employment rights. As this debate has demonstrated, there is much more to do. We must take urgent steps to close the maternal mortality gap. We must address the fact that black people are up to five times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than their white peers and are three and a half times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act. We must also take urgent action to address inequalities in housing, employment and education, which all too often disproportionately affect black and minority ethnic communities. By introducing our Renters’ Rights Bill, our Employment Rights Bill and our Bill on equality in race and disability, we are working to address these issues. We will work closely with businesses and workers on developing and implementing our commitments. We are working at pace across Government to develop and deliver wider proposals to address persistent racial inequalities wherever they arise. We have put this work at the core of our ambitious mission-based programme to change this country, so that whoever you are, wherever you grew up and wherever you come from, if Britain is your home, Britain is a country that will value your contribution. It is where you belong, and we will ensure opportunity for all to achieve their ambitions. To quote David Olusoga: “Black British history is everyone’s history and is all the stronger for it.” Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Black History Month.

• 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 · Scottish Visa Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman knows that net migration must come down. It trebled under the last Government, largely driven by overseas recruitment. Immigration is a reserved matter, working in the interests of the whole UK. Previous schemes along the lines that he has suggested have succeeded only in restricting movement and rights and creating internal UK borders. Adding different rules for different locations would also increase complexity and create frictions when workers move locations.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Scottish Visa Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  We are committed to working with the Scottish Government on this and all issues. Indeed, many of the levers to address depopulation in Scotland are in powers that the Scottish Government already have at their disposal. The reasons for local workers leaving particular areas must be addressed through investment in jobs, in infrastructure and in public services, and many of these are issues that we must tackle together.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It was a shocking report, and one that the previous Government refused to publish. I would be very happy to meet him and other hon. Members to discuss it.

• 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.