The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a
statement on legal migration. Migration to this country is far too
high and needs to come down. Today, we are taking more robust
action than any Government have before in order to bring it down.
Since my first day in the Home Office, just three weeks ago, I have
been determined to crack down on those who try to jump the queue
and exploit our...Request free trial
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a
statement on legal migration.
Migration to this country is far too high and needs to come down.
Today, we are taking more robust action than any Government have
before in order to bring it down. Since my first day in the Home
Office, just three weeks ago, I have been determined to crack
down on those who try to jump the queue and exploit our
immigration system. I have been working closely with my right
hon. Friend the Immigration Minister on this subject. The recent
figures from the Office for National Statistics show a
provisional estimate of net migration for the year ending June
2023 of 672,000. While that is lower than the ONS estimate for
net migration for the year ending December 2022, it is still far
too high.
When our country voted to leave the European Union, we also voted
to take back control of our borders. Thanks to this Conservative
Government, we now have a points-based immigration system through
which we can control who comes to the UK. We prioritise the
skills and talent we need to grow our economy and support our
NHS, and we have a competitive visa system for globally mobile
talent; for example, last year we expanded health worker visa
access to address the urgent need for more social care workers.
The whole country can be proud that in the past decade we have
also welcomed more than half a million people through
humanitarian routes—people from Ukraine, Hong Kong and
Afghanistan, including 85,000 from Ukraine and Hong Kong in the
past year alone.
The British people will always do the right thing by those in
need, but they also, absolutely rightly, want to reduce overall
immigration numbers. That means not only stopping the boats and
shutting down illegal routes, but a well-managed reduction in
legal migration. People are understandably worried about housing,
GP appointments, school places and access to other public
services when they can see their communities growing quickly in
numbers.
From January 2024, the right for international students to bring
dependants will be removed unless they are on postgraduate
courses designated as research programmes. We always want to
attract the global brightest and best. We have also stopped
international students switching out of the student route into
work routes before their studies have been completed. These
changes will have a tangible impact on net migration; around
153,000 visas were granted to dependants of sponsored students in
the year ending September 2023.
Today, I can announce that we will go even further, with a
five-point plan to further curb immigration abuses that will
deliver the biggest ever reduction in net migration. In total,
this package, plus our reduction in student dependants, will mean
that around 300,000 fewer people will come to the UK in future
years than came last year.
These measures are possible because we are building up our
domestic workforce and supporting British workers. Thanks to the
excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions
Secretary, our back to work plan will help people stay healthy,
get off benefits and move into sustainable employment. It builds
on the ambitious £7 billion employment package from the spring
Budget to help up to 1.1 million people with long-term health
conditions or disabilities, or who have been in long-term
unemployment, to look for work, get into work and stay in work.
We are also investing heavily in helping adults learn valuable
skills and prepare for the economy of the future, and of course
we have world-class universities that help in that endeavour.
The first point of our five-point plan will be to end the abuse
of the health and care visa. We will stop overseas care workers
bringing family dependants, and we will require care firms in
England to be regulated by the Care Quality Commission in order
to sponsor visas. Approximately 120,000 dependants accompanied
100,000 care workers and senior care workers in the year ending
September 2023. Only 25% of dependants are estimated to be in
work, which means that a significant number are drawing on public
services rather than helping to grow the economy. We recognise
that foreign workers do great work in our NHS and health sector,
but it is also important that migrants make a big enough
financial contribution. Therefore, we will increase the annual
immigration health surcharge this year by 66%, from £624 to
£1,035, to raise on average around £1.3 billion for the health
services of this country every year.
Secondly, we will stop immigration undercutting the salaries of
British workers. We will increase the skilled worker earnings
threshold by a third to £38,700 from next spring, in line with
the median full-time wage for those kinds of jobs. Those coming
on health and social care visa routes will be exempt, so we can
continue to bring in the healthcare workers on which our care
sector and NHS rely.
Thirdly, we will scrap cut-price shortage labour from overseas by
ending the 20% going rate salary discount for shortage
occupations and reforming the shortage occupations list. I have
asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review the occupations
on the list because of our new higher skilled worker salary
threshold, and we will create a new immigration salary list, with
a reduced number of occupations, in co-ordination with MAC.
Fourthly, we will ensure that people bring only dependants whom
they can support financially, by raising the minimum income for
family visas to the same threshold as the minimum salary
threshold for skilled workers, which is £38,700. The minimum
income requirement is currently £18,600 and has not been
increased since 2012. This package of measures will take effect
from next spring.
Finally, having already banned overseas master’s students from
bringing family members to the UK, I have asked the Migration
Advisory Committee to review the graduate route to prevent abuse
and protect the integrity and quality of the UK’s outstanding
higher education sector. It needs to work in the best interests
of the UK, supporting the pathway into high-quality jobs for the
global talent pool, but reducing opportunities for abuse. This
package of measures, in addition to the measures on student
dependants that we announced in May, will mean that around
300,000 fewer people will be eligible to come to the UK than came
last year. That is the largest reduction on record.
Immigration policy must be fair, consistent, legal and
sustainable. That is why we are also taking the fight to illegal
migration. Our plan to stop the boats is working. Small boat
arrivals are down by a third, even as illegal migration across
the rest of Europe is on the rise.
Today we have taken decisive action to reduce legal migration
with our five-point plan. Enough is enough. We are curbing abuses
of the healthcare visa, increasing thresholds, cutting the
shortage occupations list discount, increasing family income
requirements and cutting the number of student dependants. I
commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
4.41pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the
statement.
Today’s statement is an admission of years of total failure by
this Conservative Government—failure on the immigration system
and failure on the economy. It is another example of the total
chaos at the heart of this Government. Net migration has trebled
since the last election, when the Conservatives promised to
reduce it, as a result of their policies on the economy and on
immigration, including the Prime Minister’s policy decisions. In
a chaotic panic, the Prime Minister now opposes the policies that
he introduced and thinks that the Government’s own decisions are
a problem. Who does the Home Secretary think has been in charge
for the past 13 years? More chaos, more veering all over the
place.
Net migration should come down. Labour has called for an end to
the 20% unfair discount, for increased salary thresholds to
prevent exploitation and for the inclusion of advice from a
strengthened Migration Advisory Committee. Most of all, we have
called for a proper plan, with clear links between the
immigration system, training and the economy, and workforce
plans, none of which are in the statement, because the Government
have no grip and no proper plan. This is a chaotic approach.
Immigration is important for Britain, and we have rightly helped
Ukraine and Hong Kong. We benefit from international talent and
students. That is why the immigration system needs to be
controlled and managed, so that it is fair and effective, and why
net migration should come down from record levels. But there
needs to be a proper plan. It was this Conservative Government
who brought in the 20% wage discount that allowed employers to
recruit at less than the going rate, even though the Migration
Advisory Committee warned against it, and even though it is
completely unfair. They chose to apply salary thresholds that
were lower than the Migration Advisory Committee originally
proposed, and to not update them for years. As Chancellor and
then as Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond
(Yorks) () repeatedly blocked proposals
to tighten the rules, including in May this year, and including
when the Government refused Labour’s calls to end the unfair 20%
discount. They repeatedly failed to listen to warnings about the
failure to train or pay properly in the UK. Twelve months ago, I
warned that work visas had substantially increased as a result of
major skills shortages in the UK and that the Conservatives were
not taking any serious action to address those shortages. The
Leader of the Opposition warned 12 months ago that the
immigration system should be linked to new requirements to train
up workers at home, but the Conservatives did nothing;
unbelievably they are still doing nothing.
There is nothing in this statement about training requirements or
workforce plans. The Conservatives say that they want fewer
shortage occupations, but it was only four months ago that they
added bricklayers, roof tilers and plasterers to the shortage
list. They have totally failed on construction training, and
there are no plans to tackle that. Engineering apprenticeships
have halved since 2018, so it is no wonder that engineering visas
have gone up. Again, there is nothing to tackle those
failures.
Social care visas have gone up from 3,500 a year to more than
100,000 a year because the Government have failed for years to
heed warnings about recruitment and retention in social care.
They halved the budget for social care workforce recruitment and
support back in the spring, and they are still not listening and
still refusing to adopt Labour’s plan for a proper workforce
strategy for social care, including professional standards and a
fair pay agreement. They are failing to tackle the delays in the
asylum system that have also pushed the net migration figures up.
They are failing to tackle NHS waiting lists that are preventing
the long-term sick from going back to work.
The Prime Minister is just crashing around all over the place,
reversing policies that he introduced, criticising policies he
defended six months ago and introducing new immigration policies
without any of the economic policies to match. A previous Prime
Minister was accused of being a shopping trolley, veering around
from one side to another. The current Prime Minister is clearly
veering, but he certainly is not steering; he has just climbed
into someone else’s shopping trolley and is being pushed around
all over the place.
Can the Home Secretary tell us where the workforce plan is on
social care, on engineering, on bricklaying and on all the
shortage occupations that the Government’s total economic failure
has left us with? Has the Migration Advisory Committee advised on
these policies? Where are the reforms to strengthen the committee
so that it can do so? Why have the Government still not
introduced our requirements on employers or on the Government to
address the skills and labour shortages that are driving the
increase in net migration in the first place? The Conservatives
are in chaos. They have no serious plan for the economy, no
serious plan for the immigration system, and no serious plan for
the country. Britain deserves better than this.
I was waiting for the policy announcement from the Labour party,
and sadly I am still waiting. The right hon. Lady talks about
skills training. Hers was the party which, in government,
dissuaded people from investing in their own skills, telling
people that the only good job was a graduate job, undermining
apprenticeships. That is something we have set about repairing
through our entire time in government. Hers was the party that,
in government, failed to put transitional measures in place when
the EU expanded, importing significant numbers of people in the
construction industry, which meant there was a disincentive to
investing in people, technology and productivity—a situation that
she now decries. She fails to make reference to the £7 billion
employment package announced in the spring Budget that will help
1.1 million people get back into work and stay in work.
When I was at the Dispatch Box in the days after my appointment,
I said that Labour had a plan for migration. The problem that
Labour Members have is that the plan they are proposing is the
plan I am already implementing. Working with the Minister for
Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark () since the day I was
appointed, we have put forward the most substantial package of
legal migration reforms that the country has ever seen. Their
great idea is already being put in place by this great
Government.
(Ashford) (Con)
I am very pleased to welcome about four and a half of the five
announcements that my right hon. Friend has made, particularly
the crackdown on abuse of the dependants route, which has proved
a weakness in the system over recent years, and the increase in
the family visa rate. He was told that this will cause
apocalyptic damage, but when I first introduced the visa 10 years
ago and set the rate at £18,700, which he now says is too low, I
was told it would be apocalyptic for family life in this country.
It was not—it was the right protection—and I am glad he is
increasing it now.
However, may I ask him about the health and care visa, and
particularly about the inability of people to bring dependants
with them? How many care workers does he think will be deterred
by that? How many fewer will be coming here? There is a shortage
of about 150,000 in the care sector at the moment, and I hope
that the new approach is not a significant contributor to the
reduction in numbers. If it is, it will cause damage to the care
sector.
My right hon. Friend asks an important question. My right hon.
Friend the Immigration Minister and I have crunched the numbers
in great detail. What we have seen through this scheme is the
displacement of British workers. The total number of people in
the sector has not increased by anywhere near as much as the
number of people who have entered on the family visa route. We
also suspect that, globally, there is significant surplus demand.
Although an individual with a family might be dissuaded because
of the restrictions on family members, someone who does not have
those family commitments will almost certainly be willing to put
themselves forward, so we do not envisage a significant reduction
in demand because of the changes. It will mean, however, that we
have the care workers we need and not the estimated 120,000 other
people who have come with them in recent years.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
The statement will be judged on whether it is pandering to the
right wing of the Home Secretary’s party or addressing the needs
of the economy—[Interruption.] I see them all cheering.
On the 120,000 dependants figure, can the Home Secretary tell me
how many of them are children? Is he suggesting that children
should be going into work? He mentioned his discussions with the
Department of Work and Pensions, but what discussions has he had
with the Health Secretary? The Home Office figures show that
143,990 health and care worker visas were granted in the year
ending in September. That is more than double the figure for
September next year, which perhaps demonstrates the real impact
that creating more barriers and red tape will have on the NHS and
care sector. Finally, Professor Brian Bell, chair of the
Migration Advisory Committee, recently warned that limits on
overseas care worker numbers could see a situation whereby
“lots of people won’t get care.”
Does the Home Secretary recognise that his proposals may cause
irrevocable harm to the care sector?
The point about dependants is an incredibly important one. If the
hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to the answer I gave to my
right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (), I made the point that we do
not envisage a reduction in the number of people working in the
care sector, but a reduction in the number of people coming with
those workers, the vast majority of whom are not in work. Whether
they are children or out-of-work adults, the simple truth of the
matter is that that creates a burden on the British welfare
system, the education system, housing, school places and GP’s
surgeries. The offer that we are making is clear: we are
supporting the health sector and the social care sector, but we
are doing so in a way that minimises the additional pressure on
communities.
It is incredibly easy for us to say and do things that might
superficially be viewed as generous, but the people who
disproportionately carry the burden of the decisions we make are
those on the lowest salaries, those who are struggling to find
housing, and those who are on waiting lists. We should be
conscious of their needs. That is why we are being thoughtful and
careful about the people we are welcoming into our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Before we go any further, colleagues will recognise that a
large number of people want to catch my eye for this statement.
We have another statement afterwards, and then we have an
important piece of legislation to which a large number of people
want to speak, so I urge colleagues to be brief in their
questions so that the Home Secretary can be concise in his
answers. I will only be calling people who arrived for the
beginning of the Home Secretary’s statement. I am trusting those
who were late not to be standing.
Sir (North East Somerset)
(Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think it would be a good idea to have a
cap on the number coming in?
Although I understand the calls for a cap, in practical terms,
managing a cap is difficult. We want to ensure that we are being
as generous as possible to the people who contribute to our
society and our economy. We also recognise that not every single
individual is the same—a child could count as one person against
a cap, as would an investor who may bring a huge number of
jobs—and we want a difference between the two to be possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
As the Home Secretary will appreciate, the Home Affairs Committee
is keen to scrutinise the policies of the Home Office. At our
meeting last week, that proved difficult because we could not get
information about, for example, the cost of the Rwanda policy,
asylum backlogs or the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking
children still missing from hotels. Can we please have an
assurance from the Home Secretary that when the Immigration
Minister appears before the Committee next week, we will have the
full evidence base and economic impact for the policy
announcements made today?
I have no doubt that the Immigration Minister, who is hugely
experienced in this portfolio, will come fully armed with facts
and figures at his fingertips.
(Wokingham) (Con)
We eased the driver shortage by training more people at home and
paying them more. Is that not the right model for the scarcity
occupations?
My right hon. Friend is right. What we want is a high-skilled,
high-productivity, high-wage economy. These proposals and the
work that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced support
that. Labour would do the opposite.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
These proposals—some of them, at least—will be met with absolute
horror in the Lake district hospitality and tourism industry,
which is a £3.5 billion industry. Twenty million people visit our
communities every year, but because of the Government’s failure
to provide sufficient affordable homes for local people and their
stupid visa rules, we now have a massive workforce crisis. Two
thirds of our businesses cannot meet demand because of inadequate
numbers of workers. Has the Home Secretary spoken to anybody
working in or managing the lakes hospitality industry, or does he
not care what they think?
My right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister met the Lake
District tourist Board; so, specifically in answer to the hon.
Member’s question, yes, he has. The simple truth of the matter is
that we have analysed the figures, and we know which sectors have
brought in the most people. Hospitality in the UK is an
incredibly important sector and a fantastic employer of local
people. That is what we want to see in that sector.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The net immigration figures are unsustainably high,
notwithstanding the large element of Ukrainian and Hong Kong
people coming here, so I welcome most of the proposals, and
particularly the action on dependants, which have gone up
sevenfold since 2020, particularly pertaining to care and health
workers. We have heard about care workers recruited to homes that
do not exist and people traffickers putting together people
awarded visas and dependants with whom they have no connection.
How will measures be taken to ensure that the proposals are
enforced and that such abuses do not continue?
We have already started to take action, and the plans that we
have put forward today will take that further. Ensuring that care
homes are registered with the Care Quality Commission goes a long
way to addressing the abuses that my hon. Friend discussed. We
are putting forward plans that support our economy, our health
sector and the British people in a clear, transparent,
predictable and fair way.
(Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
(Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell us which business groups or trade
associations support the proposals and were involved in
developing them? I have heard concerns from businesses today that
our national economic interest is once again in the hands of Tory
head-bangers.
We continue to work extensively with business to ensure that
their need for employees is supported, and to support our economy
in a way that does not undermine communities or depress wages but
supports the high-skill, high-wage economy that we aspire to.
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not.
(Camborne and Redruth)
(Con)
Is not the problem with a skills-based immigration policy that it
gives preferential access to bankers, lawyers, accountants and
economists, even though we have no need for such people in this
country? We have plenty of homegrown talent here. That makes it
difficult to recruit the people we do need: care workers; people
in the food industry and in manufacturing, or producing things
generally; or in the tourism industry. Will the Secretary of
State consider moving away from the failed skills-based migration
policy towards one based on the needs of our economy?
I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but the figures
just do not bear out his assessment. The vast majority of people
in the last couple of years’ worth of immigration figures are in
the lower end of the skills spectrum. The figures do not bear out
his point.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
There is no evidence that immigration pushes down wages. I do not
know if the Secretary of State has any elderly relatives in care,
but I do. I know the invaluable contribution that overseas care
workers make. Many are young men and women, for example from the
Philippines, who are wonderfully hard-working, caring and very
respectful of elderly people. Why should they be forced to leave
their dependent children thousands of miles away in the
Philippines?
No one is being forced to do anything. If people choose to come
here, they choose to abide by the rules that we put in place.
That is completely fair and appropriate. My mother came to work
in the NHS in the 1960s. We value the people from around the
world who have come to support us, but it is right and fair that
we put rules in place, that we let people know those rules and,
if they wish to come and join us in this wonderful country and
work in our wonderful society, it is right and fair that they
abide by those rules.
Sir (Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Con)
My constituents will warmly welcome today’s announcement, because
immigration figures in recent years are clearly unsustainable.
Does it not speak volumes that we are described as head-bangers
for pointing out what is blindingly obvious to Government
Members? What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to an
annual migration budget, so that we can all be held accountable
in this House for the choices that we make on behalf of our
constituents?
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Ultimately, the
decisions that we make here affect the lives of others. We should
always be conscious of the impact of our decisions. That is why
we have listened carefully to those who have spoken of housing
shortages and school places becoming harder to find in their
local areas. With figures significantly higher than promised,
they would want us to take action. We are now taking action—that
was always part of taking back control. We hear over and over
from Opposition Members that they do not want us to take action.
They are fundamentally wrong on this issue.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
When it was raised last week by my right hon. Friend the Member
for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (), the shadow Home Secretary,
it appeared that the Home Secretary did not even realise that
foreign workers were being paid 20% less than UK workers—the
so-called “salary discount”—but he has followed her good advice
and I welcome the end of that discrepancy. How will the new
payroll be applied to those already here?
It will be brought in in the early part of next year, in close
co-ordination with the Migration Advisory Committee. No one who
is already here will be disadvantaged. Ultimately, we want a high
skilled, high wage, high productivity economy. The shadow Home
Secretary says that the Labour party wants to address those
issues, but I made a quiet prediction to myself and others that
each and every intervention from the Labour Back Benches would be
in complete contradiction to her position from the Labour Front
Bench. Let us see.
(Rochester and Strood)
(Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for his statement on the measures he
will be taking to bring down the number, which is too big and
unsustainable, particularly for communities in the south-east.
Now that he is making the best of being able to change the policy
to suit the needs of this country, will he consider an annual
review to alter the requirements and rules to suit the needs of
this country over time?
My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. Our promise
to the British people was to take back control of our immigration
system and our borders, a policy that was, at the time and
subsequently, opposed by the Labour party. Taking back control
means making adjustments, addressing the needs of our economy and
our society. The changes I am putting forward today are in
response to our economic needs, as well as our social needs.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
There is a global skills shortage of health and care workers, so
they have choices to go to other countries that will accept
dependants. What message does the Home Secretary have for the 7.8
million people currently on the NHS waiting list, when we will
not have the skills to provide the care they desperately
need?
As predicted, each and every one of the speakers on the
Opposition Benches thus far has opposed the proposals I put
forward, despite what the shadow Home Secretary said. As the hon.
Lady will have heard me answer on two occasions, we do not
envisage a reduction in demand because of the significantly large
number of applicants that was originally envisaged when the visa
scheme was put in place.
(Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I find it baffling, given that well over 1 million people came to
this country in the past two years, that the Opposition parties
do not seem to think it a good idea to scale back. I congratulate
my right hon. Friend on this package. Will he also look at the
question of those who come her to study? There is an automatic
assumption at the moment that those who do so have a right to
stay after they have studied and look for a job. There is a case
for revisiting that and asking whether that is right in all
circumstances.
My right hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to students.
Our university sector is a global success story and widely
respected around the world. We want to make sure it maintains
that reputation for quality. We want to make sure that the global
brightest and best who choose to come to study and work here are
genuinely the global brightest and best. Higher education should
be a route to study and education, rather than a visa route by
the back door.
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Since the crew for fishing vessels was added to the shortage
occupation list by the Government, only a handful of visas have
been granted. That is not because of the earnings threshold—most
would meet that requirement comfortably—but because of the
requirement for the English language test at level B1. Why does
the Home Secretary think that B1 is an appropriate level for
somebody working on a fishing boat?
An inability to speak English would hamper anybody, and it really
is entirely reasonable to expect people coming here to work to be
able to do so.
(Winchester) (Con)
This year, vacancies in adult social care fell a little—the
figure now stands at a “mere” 152,000—which was due to a large
increase in the number of care workers coming to this country as
part of the shortage occupations list. The Library tells me that,
as of September, there were 121,000 vacancies in the NHS. What
exact changes does the Home Secretary envisage making to the
shortage occupations list? Can he please show the workings-out of
the changes to family arrangements, for which he said that he has
crunched the numbers with the Immigration Minister? Above all,
who did Ministers consult in the health and care sector ahead of
today’s legal migration announcement?
We asked the Migration Advisory Committee to look into these
things—that it why it exists—however my hon. Friend makes a very
important point, which speaks to why we are tightening the system
to prevent abuse. Anyone looking at the numbers will see that a
significant number of people have come through the health and
social care visa system over the last couple of years, yet we
have lost them from health and social care. That is not what any
of us needs or wants. The right thing to do is to ensure that
those who come are genuinely employed in that sector, which is
where we need them—that is the promise that they have made to us,
and that we have made to them. Ensuring that that is the case is
the right and fair thing to do.
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Minister said: “Migration to this country is far too high and
needs to come down.” But as others have said, so many of those
who come to this country make a critical contribution to our
employment sectors, no more so than by filling the gaping holes
in our social care and health sector. I would be interested to
hear the Minister’s response to Unison, the social care trade
union, which says:
“The care system would implode without migrant care staff.”
Does he not agree that a better, more humane approach would be to
fund local government to improve social care pay and
conditions?
There we go again. As I have said, while the shadow Home
Secretary says that immigration numbers are too high, each and
every one of her Back Benchers disagrees with any action to deal
with it. We have got to bring these numbers down, we have
committed to do so, and we have put forward a thoughtful plan,
which takes into consideration the needs of the health and social
care sectors.
(Redditch) (Con)
I think the howls of outrage from the Opposition Benches
highlight the inconsistency in Labour’s position, given that it
was the party that wanted to overturn the referendum and
introduce unlimited free movement of labour. Does the Home
Secretary agree that pressure from migration puts pressure on
local families and young people who want to buy or rent their own
house, and will he consider that every time he grants more visas
for people to come to this country?
This is an incredibly important point, and it is why control of
immigration is so important. We are a generous country. We have
demonstrated that generosity time and time again, whether it be
towards the Ugandan Asians, people from west Africa, people from
Hong Kong or people from Ukraine. We are rightly proud, but it is
also important that we prove that we are thoughtful about the
implications for those who live here, whether they have lived
here for decades, for years, or for generations. That is why it
is right that we have put forward these proposals, which are
carefully calibrated to support our economy and our health and
social care needs, but also to bring down those figures.
(Slough) (Lab)
The net migration figure is now 672,000—three times the level at
the 2019 general election, when the Conservatives promised to
reduce it. Does the Home Secretary concede that the Tories have
failed miserably on immigration policy, along with a whole host
of other policies, and that that is why their time is now well
and truly up?
No, I do not.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on taking a thoroughly common-sense
view in raising the threshold to £38,000—and I say that as a
senior citizen member of the New Conservatives—but the Home
Secretary said in his statement:
“Those coming on health and social care visa routes will be
exempt, so we can continue to bring in the healthcare workers on
which our care sector and NHS rely.”
What does that phrase mean? Will such action not drive a coach
and horses through this measure? Surely the solution is for the
care sector to pay proper wages.
We have recognised the recruitment challenge for domestic workers
in the health and social care system, and we have made it clear
on a number of occasions that we will not allow those extremely
important public services, on which we rely, to be without the
staff that they need. What we want to do is bring in the people
who are employed in those sectors, but not the dependants whom
they have typically brought with them. That will enable us to
lower the headline numbers, which we have committed ourselves to
doing, while protecting the health and social care sector, which
we have also committed ourselves to doing.
(Exeter) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has admitted several times that we are losing
people from the health and social care sector, both domestic
workers and people whom the Government have brought in, but he
has said nothing about increasing pay, has he?
We have said over and over again that we are working towards a
higher-productivity, higher-skilled, higher-wage employment
sector, across all sectors of employment. What we have said is
that the current visa regime has displaced workers, which is why
we are changing it.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent, North Kidsgrove and Talke will
welcome today’s announcements from the Home Secretary and the
Immigration Minister, while also recognising the faux outrage of
Opposition Members who can talk tough through their rhetoric from
the Front Bench. The squirming on the Back Benches of
uncomfortableness when it comes to talking about immigration is
something that I thoroughly enjoy, especially as we know that
they wish to return free movement via the back door. Will my
right hon. Friend confirm that future reviews will look to
stopping the dependency route for those on one-year Masters by
Research degree courses as well?
We have committed to doing a wider review of the higher
education, post-graduate route, and I take my hon. Friend’s point
on board. We have already taken action, but I commit to reviewing
it, and once we have seen the outcome of the review, I will be
able to update my hon. Friend and the House on the decisions that
we make.
(Oxford West and Abingdon)
(LD)
A choice could have been made between protecting the flank
against Reform UK and backing British business. I do not
understand how the Home Secretary can think that the way to
create jobs for local people is to starve sectors such as the
science industry of, for example, the lab technicians required to
drive what they need to do. How on earth does he think that
anyone in Oxford West and Abingdon will be helped to get a job
when the industries that employ them are not able to grow?
It would have been better had the hon. Lady listened to the
points that were made about protecting the scientific community
in and around Oxford by ensuring that we remain attractive to the
global brightest and best, and protecting the people who need our
protection in the health and social care sectors by ensuring that
those sectors are staffed. The simple fact is, however, that we
have committed ourselves to bringing these numbers down. What we
are proposing will bring those numbers down, and will do so in a
way that reinforces our commitment to a higher-skilled, more
productive, higher-wage economy.
Sir (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that, in order for any large-scale
immigration policy to succeed, it is necessary for people to wish
to integrate? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that
there is a smooth path to integration for those large numbers of
people who come here?
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I
replied earlier about the need for English language. If somebody
is denied the ability to communicate in the country that they
choose to call home, they will be permanently disadvantaged and
find it harder to integrate. We want people to integrate; we want
people to be and feel part of our communities. We want the
communities that they move into to welcome them and to be
confident that the immigration system of this country supports
not only those new arrivals who choose to make this country their
home but the people who already live here.
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
After 13 years in power and seven years after we voted to leave
the EU, I do not know why anyone would believe that this
Government will reduce net migration in the way that is being
claimed today. But if we assume the Home Secretary’s figures are
right, net migration will still be higher than it was in 2019
when his party promised to reduce it. That is right, isn’t
it?
The simple truth is that the British people have far more
confidence in the party that campaigned to take back control of
its immigration system, than they do in the party that would
maintain free movement and whose contributions from the
Opposition Benches have, unsurprisingly, been in opposition to
the decisions that we are taking to bring down the numbers of net
migration.
(St Austell and Newquay)
(Con)
I very much welcome the announcement today, and particularly the
measures to stop the abuse of the health and care visa. The Home
Secretary will be aware of a number of bogus care companies that
are charging people tens of thousands of pounds to come to this
country, only to find that there is no job. Many of them are
ending up in Cornwall. I think I understood him to say that these
measures would be introduced in the spring. Can I urge him to
look at bringing that forward so that we can end what is
effectively people trafficking and ripping people off and the
misery that it is causing?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are brought
here on a false premise are victims of abuses of this system. We
are already taking action to address those abuses, and this
package of reforms goes further still, with the necessity to be
subscribed to the Care Quality Commission. He is absolutely right
to say that abuses hurt everybody, and we will continue to take
action to address them.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
Net migration figures are also affected by the number of people
who choose to leave the country, and since Brexit it has been
much more difficult for people from Glasgow North who want to
live, study or work in Europe for any extended period of time.
What steps are the Government taking to negotiate more visa
exchange programmes with the European Union and other countries
that could allow the sharing of skills and experience across
borders, with at the very least a neutral effect on net
migration?
Without wanting to drift back into my old portfolio, I have, in
close co-ordination with my right hon. Friend the Immigration
Minister, negotiated a number of youth mobility programmes to
attract the brightest and the best. The hon. Gentleman talks
about people leaving certain geographies. He might want to
reflect on the fact that a significant number of people are
leaving Scotland to come south of the border because of the
pernicious income tax regime that the Scottish National party
Government in Edinburgh have put in place.
(Great Grimsby) (Con)
I would like to thank my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary
and the Immigration Minister for listening to us. I am sure that
the measures he has announced today will be welcomed by
constituents in Grimsby, but does he agree that we need these
measures to come quickly and that we perhaps need more
conditionality? For instance, if people are coming here
supposedly to take up skilled or skill-shortage jobs but are not
doing so, perhaps we should invite them not to stay.
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about these reforms, and
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister,
who has been working on this for longer than the three weeks that
I have been in this role. My hon. Friend is right to say that we
want to bring people here in good faith and that we expect them
to act in good faith. If they apply via a certain visa route, we
expect them to abide by the conditionality of that visa route. If
they contribute, play by the rules and do the right thing, they
will always be welcome, but we take a dim view of those people
who seek to abuse our hospitality.
(Eltham) (Lab)
Immigration figures have trebled since the 2019 general election,
and it is worth reminding ourselves that, back then, the
Conservatives told us that they were going to reduce immigration
to the tens of thousands. The scale of the failure is enormous,
as underlined by the Office for National Statistics, which says
that 90,000 asylum seekers have been waiting over a year for
their asylum cases to be dealt with, so more than 15% of it is
due to the sheer incompetence of the Secretary of State’s
Department. What is he going to do about that? I did not hear any
reference to it in his statement.
We have increased the pace of decision making in our asylum
processing system tenfold. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in
recent years we have made very generous offers to the people of
Hong Kong and Ukraine. I know the British people will recognise
which of our two parties will grip immigration, and it certainly
is not his.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
This excellent package is a big step in the right direction,
towards a higher-skill, higher-wage economy with less pressure on
our housing and infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend put in
the Library the analysis behind his statement that this package,
plus the previously announced reduction in student dependants,
will mean that more than 300,000 people who came last year would
no longer be able to do so? It would be interesting to understand
how much of that is the previously announced reduction in student
dependants, how much of it comes from each of the announcements
made today and how it compares with the forecast for future
migration laid out by the OBR in the most recent economic and
fiscal outlook. Will he put that in the Library? A previous
Government were rightly mocked for saying that only tens of
thousands of people would come from eastern Europe, and they were
completely wrong. As well as having a better policy, can we also
have more transparency?
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am more than happy
to put in the Library our estimates of the impact of these
announcements and the previous announcements.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I understand exactly what the Home Secretary is trying to do on
migration, and there is a need to do some of those things. I work
closely with the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation
back home, and fishing is an industry that welcomes foreign
workers as there is a clear shortage. When we left the EU, the
fishing sector was promised that things would get better, that
quotas would make stocks more available and that the fishing
sector would therefore grow. The fishing sector welcomed
that.
The minimum income was set at £18,600, whereas the average wage
of a fisherman in Northern Ireland is £24,000. The English
language became the next obstacle, and the fishing sector tried
to agree to it. Will there be some realism on the skilled worker
threshold of £38,700, which will not give the fishing sector the
opportunity it needs to be active in employing people?
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We will work with the MAC to
ensure that, as we get rid of the shortage occupation list, we do
not undermine key industries. I want to ensure that the fishing
industry, whether in Northern Ireland or on the east coast of
Scotland, can remain viable and profitable. That will always be
part of our thinking.
(Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Con)
I warmly welcome this statement and these measures. I thank my
right hon. Friends, the Home Secretary and the Minister for
Immigration, for listening to colleagues on both sides of the
House, and especially those in our New Conservatives group.
Extraordinary growth in immigration levels over recent years has
been masking some long-term structural weaknesses in our economy,
such as low productivity, high debt, falling birth rates and a
negative balance of trade, by propping up the OBR’s superficial
GDP growth figures. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary
agree that, in order to bring down immigration numbers
permanently, the OBR must instead turn its attention to the kinds
of growth that really matter to our constituents: skills growth,
wage growth, housing growth and industry growth? In other words,
real growth.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain relentlessly
focused on those very issues. Increasing skills, increasing
productivity and increasing investment in plant, machinery and
technology to unlock the full economic potential of this country
is at its heart. We will always make our case to the OBR. We will
do what we know to be in the best interests of this country and
of the people who work in this country.
(South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on at last tackling an
unsustainable issue, but was he, like me, a little concerned that
two very high-ranking officials were unable at a parliamentary
Committee to answer basic questions on migrant issues? Will he
assure me that this will not happen in future and that he will
push through these five excellent points forthwith?
I assure my hon. Friend that we will deliver these proposals with
alacrity and at pace.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents believe migration figures are too high, so I
welcome today’s statement and thank the Home Secretary and the
Immigration Minister for their hard work to develop the
proposals. We heard from the Opposition how some large businesses
will bemoan the fact that they no longer have access to cheap
labour undercutting the British workforce, but does the Home
Secretary agree that raising the threshold to £38,000 means that
businesses will need to invest in technology, higher wages and
better conditions for the domestic workforce?
To be really profitable, a lot of businesses understand that
their best choice is to invest in their own businesses and
people. Through the super-deduction policies put forward by my
right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are encouraging businesses
to invest in technology to unlock productivity and in the people
they employ, because we are committed to a high-wage,
high-productivity, high-growth economy.
(Rother Valley)
(Con)
I welcome today’s announcement, which will cut about 300,000
people off our net migration figures. Does the Home Secretary
agree that the number of migrants the UK allows in each year
should be directly proportionate to the number of new homes, GPs
and school places we have, because at the moment the situation is
completely unsustainable?
An important part of taking back control of our migration
processes is to give planners, particularly at local government
level, some kind of certainty about the demand. We see the demand
from migration fall unevenly across the UK, putting some
communities, particularly coastal communities, under great
pressure. We want to ensure we have a planned, controlled
immigration system. We are making these changes and bringing the
numbers under control so that local government planners and
others have more certainty about the future.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome the measures, but it is a shame they have taken so
long. They should have been published after the last ONS stats
were published, when I suggested a number of ideas about how we
could keep our promise to the British public. There is great
cynicism among the public about politicians talking about
immigration—they have heard it all before. Will the Home
Secretary promise that in the months ahead, he will explicitly
demonstrate to the British public that this time it is different,
we mean it and they will see change?
I assure my hon. Friend that the Immigration Minister and I had
our first conversations on these figures before the ONS figures
came out. I discussed the plans, which he had been working on for
some time, within hours of being appointed to this role. We are
working closely with the Treasury and other Departments on the
implications. Across Government, the package is subscribed to and
it will be delivered. While we recognise that it will not provide
an instant fix—the House has to be realistic about that—we are
committed to bringing the figures down and taking back control of
our borders.
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
I warmly welcome the measures. I thank the Home Secretary for his
highly robust statement and the Immigration Minister for his
excellent work, which responds to the concerns of my constituents
in Bassetlaw and the constituents of other Members. Does my right
hon. Friend agree that the measures mean we will continue to
bring the brightest and best to this country, as well as those
seeking help and refuge, such as those from Ukraine and Hong
Kong, but not those who, along with their dependants, do not
represent a net benefit to the UK and who consume more than they
contribute?
I visited businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency not long
ago, and I could see the desire among the businesses that we met,
whether they were traditional metalworking businesses or
high-tech drone businesses, for the brightest and the best. They
want people who are genuinely committed to contributing to our
economy. That is the default setting of the British people. We
are generous at heart, and we have a track record of being very
generous, but we expect people to play by the rules and to
contribute to our society and economy. That is not too much to
ask. We are putting those conditions in place—conditions that,
unsurprisingly, are opposed over and over again by all Opposition
parties.
Mr (Delyn) (Ind)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary
group for the Philippines. After the UK and India, the
Philippines provides the third highest number of workers in our
health service, and we would be in a very difficult place without
their vital work to keep us safe and well. I welcome that people
coming on the healthcare visa will be exempt from the increased
salary requirements, but the cost of permanent residency remains
extremely challenging and a barrier to entry. Given that the Home
Secretary has spoken a number of times about integration, and the
importance of such people in our communities, will he meet me and
representatives of the Philippine Nurses Association to discuss
how we might help them to make this country their permanent home
as thanks for their amazing work?
I recognise the contribution that medical professionals from the
Philippines make to the UK; indeed, I was in Manila not long ago,
just before I was appointed Home Secretary. I value their
contribution. We want to ensure that we support the people who
want to come here and work, that we fill those roles, and that by
using technology—there is technological opportunity in the health
and social care sector—we increase productivity to fund wage
increases. I will of course speak with the hon. Member, and if my
diary commitments allow I will try to find an opportunity to
speak with representatives of the Filipino community in the UK as
well.
|
