Thank you for contacting me about the Immigration Bill.
The Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill is vital piece of legislation to provide the foundations for our new immigration system. This is a simple piece of legislation to end free movement of people and I believe any amendments to the legislation will simply delay or prevent the Government from fulfilling a clear manifesto commitment. This Bill is not the place for making changes to broader immigration policy.
I welcome the fact that the Government remains committed to an immigration policy that welcomes and celebrates those who are here legally. The Government is to build a fairer single, global immigration system which considers people based on their skills, rather than nationality.
The UK should continue to take action to help those who are vulnerable and need our protection, specifically unaccompanied child refugees. The Government is committed to doing this and has a strong record on supporting vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers. Through resettlement schemes, the UK resettles more refugees than any other country in Europe and are in the top five countries worldwide. Since September 2015, more than 25,000 vulnerable refugees have been resettled, with around half being children.
I respectfully believe that our disagreement on this issue is more about process than policy. As you may be aware, the UK presented a credible and serious offer to the EU to agree new, post-transition arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Government has confirmed that it remains the goal to negotiate such an arrangement.
As I hope you will appreciate, negotiations are ongoing and I believe that it would not be right to undermine these in any way. A UK-EU agreement would be preferable to domestic Immigration Rules, as it would guarantee the support of sending states in the referral, transfer and safeguarding of children during the process. Therefore, a negotiated agreement is clearly the preferred approach. I do however welcome the fact that the Government has agreed to revisit the UK’s unilateral position if an agreement is not possible.
I understand your concerns and appreciate why you feel having physical proof may be appropriate. However, I would like to reassure you that the digital approach is not new. The Government is moving to a system which is digital by default and all migrants not just EEA migrants will have online access to their immigration status rather than physical proof. This means that individuals will be able to access their status at anytime from anywhere on the view and prove service on GOV.UK.
I welcome this approach as physical documents can get lost, stolen, damaged and tampered with. I am reassured that it is unnecessary to provide physical proof as the Home Office provide all successful applicants with a written notification setting out their immigration status, alongside secure access to their immigration status information via the online service that they can share at any time with third parties such as landlords and banks.
I sincerely believe that the EU Settlement Scheme provides people with a secure, digital status which future-proofs their rights.
The Coronavirus pandemic has proven beyond all doubt the need for an immigration system that will not just allow but actively welcome a range of health professionals to the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that the Government has ensured that this will be the case. The new Health and Care Visa creates a new fast-track visa route for eligible health and care professionals.
However, I understand that you have concerns about the eligibility criteria of this new visa. The care sector plays an absolutely vital role in our society and I understand the Government is working closely with the sector to support and recognise the contribution of care workers. It is good news that Ministers are focusing on training and building a career structure for those in the sector.
I agree with the Independent Migration Advisory Committee who have been very clear that immigration is not the answer to the challenges in the social care sector. With this in mind I welcome the investment of £1.5 billion more funding in adults and children’s social care in 2020-21 and the launch of a national recruitment scheme to support the sector. While you may not agree with this approach, I believe we should be investing in our domestic workforce. This will help provide and expand opportunities across Mid Derbyshire.
Under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, EU citizens who have settled in the UK before the end of the transition period are eligible to apply for settled status so that the rights they currently enjoy are guaranteed.
After the end of the transition period, EU and non-EU citizens will be treated in the same way. There will no longer be discrimination based on citizenship and so EU citizens will need to meet the same requirements set out by immigration rules as non-EU citizens.
I am aware of the amendment tabled by the House of Lords in this area. The change suggested would provide preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The result would be that the family members of such UK nationals would forever bypass the Immigration Rules that otherwise apply to the family members of other UK nationals.
The main concern I have regarding this suggested change, is that it would result in an unfair situation for all other UK nationals wishing to live in the UK with family members from other countries outside the EEA and Switzerland. I believe the British people voted to ensure the creation of a new immigration system built on fairness and not based on nationality. Unfortunately, the suggested creation of a lifetime right for one group of nationals would be unfair on the other UK citizens living overseas who have family members from other parts of the world.
While I understand that you are disappointed by this position, I believe that it is a fairer approach for those wishing to come to this country in the future. Preferential treatment rights for only one group of people would be, in my view, unfair.
I know that the Government is focused on working closely with local authorities to ensure vulnerable groups get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. Ministers have been clear from the start of the EU Settlement Scheme that the Home Office will accept late applications where there are reasonable grounds for doing so. If a child in care or care leaver does miss the deadline, they will still be able to obtain lawful status in the UK.
It is only right that every case is considered individually and kept under constant review - my constituents would expect nothing less. I would like to assure you that there is a general presumption of liberty for all and if detention is used as circumstances change, detention is reviewed, and release may then be the appropriate response.
The UK is committed to using immigration detention sparingly and only when necessary. Indefinite detention is not permitted in UK law. In order for the detention of an individual to be lawful, there must be a realistic prospect of their removal within a reasonable timescale. The Government is held to account on this by the courts, and by a series of safeguards that ensure proper scrutiny of decisions to detain, and on-going detention.
In my view, a time limit is not only unnecessary, but it would also severely limit the Government’s ability to use detention as an effective means of maintaining lawful immigration control. I have been advised that any time limit would encourage those who seek to frustrate the removal process to run down the clock until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed, regardless of the proximity of removal and the facts of the case.
I was very concerned to discover that if there was a 28-day limit to immigration detention in place in December 2019, over 100 rapists, murderers, and child sex offenders awaiting deportation would have been released.
I am absolutely resolute in my determination to ensure this horrendous crime is tackled. It is welcome progress that the Government is identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before. Continued support of victims and survivors is a clear priority. I will push the Government to ensure action is taken to help these individuals rebuild their lives.
However, a blanket policy of granting discretionary leave risks creating the incentive for some to make false trafficking claims in an attempt fraudulently to obtain leave to remain. This approach suggested would put support for those who truly need help at risk. Having said this, of course, granting leave to remain is appropriate in some cases. However, the individual circumstances of a case should be central to the decision. I do not believe a decision on whether leave is granted should be determined by someone’s nationality
I hope this response has highlighted the areas where the Government is already at work to ensure protections are provided for those who need, that our new immigration system works for the whole country and the countless promises to the British people are fulfilled as the UK leaves the transition period.