27
Examination of witnesses
Mike Tapp and Dan Hobbs.
Q152 The Chair: Welcome everybody to this 11th and final oral evidence session. We are delighted to have the Minister here with us. I would be grateful if you and your colleague could introduce yourselves.
Mike Tapp: Mike Tapp, Minister for Migration and Citizenship in the Home Office.
Dan Hobbs: Good morning. Dan Hobbs, director-general for migration and borders in the Home Office.
The Chair: Thank you.
Q153 Lord Dubs: Good morning, Minister. Thank you for being with us. A great deal has been said about applying changes to the Immigration Rules retrospectively. What is the rationale for doing that? Are the proposed changes legal if they are applied retrospectively?
Mike Tapp: Thank you for the question, Lord Dubs. This is of course a topical question. The Home Office, the Home Secretary and the Ministers under her are fully aware that we are facing new times. We have had unprecedented levels of migration into the country over the last five years specifically. That includes a high number coming in who are classed, economically, as low-skilled workers.
For example, between 2020 and 2024, we saw arriving around one in 30 of all the people who are in this country today. There were 616,000 arrivals to fill around 40,000 vacancies in the care sector. These are unprecedented levels of migration, we are in new times, and it is the Government’s responsibility to respond to the challenges that we face.
That is why we are having to take these steps of pushing settlement from five to 10 years. On the specifics around retrospectivity in your question, these numbers would mean up to 2.6 million people having access to welfare and benefits and, of course, we are already seeing strains on those systems in my constituency and across the whole country.
So, it is important that we take these steps. They are not easy decisions, and the Home Secretary was clear, on taking on this huge role, that there would be difficult decisions to make. We still, of course, value the contribution of people coming here, but we have to ensure that if you do come to the country, you are contributing and integrating, so that we do not allow for division and, at the extremities, racism, and so that we can live together and unite. That is part of the thinking behind this.
Lord Dubs: You have no doubts about the legality of this being retrospective?
Mike Tapp: Excuse me, I just want to correct the figure I gave for the record—it would be 1.6 million. I said 2.6 million.
In terms of the legality of this, we are receiving legal advice on that and the impact assessments will be published in due course. But yes, we are satisfied with that.
The Chair: What is the benefit of all the things that you have just said were the purposes behind the decision to have things done retrospectively? How does that help any of the things you raised in your opening remarks?
Mike Tapp: If we carry on down the path that we are on, or were on when we came into the Home Office, we would see large numbers settling over the next—
The Chair: I understand that. I am not arguing for or against the changes to the current arrangement. If you believe that changes are needed, you will put those forward, as you have done. Our question is: why are you applying these changes retrospectively to people who are already in the country, have already been making a contribution and are expecting, for example, to get ILR after a period of five years and are now suddenly going to be told that it will be a very much longer period. How does that help anybody?
Mike Tapp: Because the levels of migration we have seen over the last five to six years, and the fact that many of those people are due to settle soon, would put untold stresses on our welfare system and social housing, for example. By making it retrospective, we are taking that pressure off the already buckling system.
The Chair: So this is just a money-saving exercise?
Mike Tapp: It is not a money-saving exercise; it is looking after the infrastructure of the nation that is already crumbling. We inherited a really difficult situation when it comes to housing and welfare, and we are doing our part to ensure that it does not go completely out of control.
These people are still welcome. There is still, of course, a route to settlement and some of the other changes within that. Of course, we have just closed the consultation, but we are clear that it is important that anyone who wants to settle here is contributing and integrating and that it is very much a privilege, not a right, to settle.
The Chair: You mentioned the consultation that has just closed. I do not know if you personally had an opportunity to look at any of the submissions, but I suspect they are very similar to the submissions that this committee has received. Many people are particularly concerned about those people who are very close to getting ILR who will now have to wait a very long time. Presumably, as a result of the consultation, you envisage that there will be some leeway for people who are perhaps within the last year or two years of completing their five years, so they will still be able to continue to ILR? Or do you think it will be a very hard decision?
Mike Tapp: There has to be a line drawn. Where do you draw the line? There will be others close to it. A lot of the transitional arrangements et cetera have just been consulted on and we are working through that. We have seen around 200,000 responses to this consultation, so it is vast, but we have started working through it. We are working through recess, for example, to ensure that we fully understand what is coming back. There is a lot of work going on around that.
The Chair: When can we expect a decision?
Mike Tapp: In the coming months. I am sorry that is very much a political answer, but it is only because I would not want to put a specific date on it and then let you down.
As Minister, my consultation has not ended, and it will not end until all the decisions are made. I am in listening mode at all times. I was with the unions yesterday listening to them and I will of course listen to concerns that are raised here today as well.
Q154 Lord Bach: Minister, you are a member of a Government who believe in the rule of law, clearly; you have shown that in a different context this week, I think. What will happen if, for example, the legal advice to act retrospectively, in the way you have suggested, is unlawful? What will happen then? This seems to be a really important point. Of course, there is a precedent from 2006; that was a different issue but, again, retrospectivity was attempted by the Government and the courts said that that was wrong and impossible because it breached the rule of law. What will the department do then? Is it not best to look and see whether there are any ways of mitigating what seems to a lot of people, perhaps, to be a very harsh view?
Mike Tapp: What I will not do today, sir, is speculate on hypotheticals. However, what I will say is that rule changes in the immigration system are made three times a year and apply to people who are already here. So we are not necessarily treading new ground, but, as I said earlier, it is our responsibility in government to respond to the challenges that we face as a country. We are confident that we are doing that.
Baroness Buscombe: Very quickly, you have mentioned infrastructure. When you look at this, do you also look at unemployment figures, which are rising? Somebody who gave evidence a few weeks ago—I am sorry; I cannot remember who it was—said that the welfare bill went up when people achieved the right to remain. Are you looking at things like that? Also, how many first-generation and second-generation migrants are now using the care system, as opposed to coming here to work in the care system?
Mike Tapp: Thank you. We are seeing high levels of unemployment among young Brits. It is important that all sectors are encouraged to engage with that and bring Brits into work. Bringing net migration down as a whole does encourage that; that is part of the strategy, working with other departments.
On your second question, I do not know the answer in terms of how many, but I imagine that there will be a fair few. The contribution made by care workers who are actually working in the care system is valued. Of course, that will be taken into consideration, certainly by me, as part of the consultation. I come from a family in that sort of service—my mum was a care worker—so I understand the strains there.
Q155 Lord Moraes: You are also the Minister for Citizenship. Having read the earned settlement proposals, what is your attitude to the statutory rights of children and others who are citizens but have not applied yet? The hurdles imposed by the Home Office are quite high. What is your attitude to their integration? It is not a naturalisation process and is not a matter of immigration. What is your current attitude to them taking up their statutory rights, becoming citizens and integrating, which is better for society and for integration generally?
Mike Tapp: Integration is vital for all communities and cultures. I know that the MHCLG’s strategy was released yesterday, although I am yet to go through it in full detail. The Government and local communities have a responsibility to encourage integration at the school level, as well as at the community group level. My view is that all cultures are welcome in this country, whether or not someone is a naturalised British citizen. It is absolutely vital that people make the effort to integrate.
Lord Moraes: My question was not about naturalisation or immigration; it was about statutory rights being taken up by people who are, as you know, de facto citizens under the British Nationality Act.
My worry is that, if you read the earned settlement proposals, you see a theme emerging around who is who and who contributes. As you will have seen, this morning, the Home Secretary said on the ILR figures that the cost is £10 billion. You probably saw Professor Portes and other say, “Actually, there is a positive benefit for the next 20 to 30 years and plenty of headroom for the Chancellor on that”. I am getting really worried that we need to say, accurately, what the benefits—or not—of integration and ILR are; that is a theme of this committee.
On citizenship, this is not a question of immigration at all; it is a question of people taking this up. They cannot do it because the fees are now multiples of the cost to the Home Office and there is no scope for legal aid. That is why we are not getting them all to integrate. Is that something you could look at? Also, would you look at the figures that we are seeing on contribution, particularly with ILR? I know that colleagues will ask about that as well.
Mike Tapp: Yes, definitely; that is certainly something we can look at. Do you want to add anything on that, Dan?
Dan Hobbs: I would be very happy to explain the comment made by the Home Secretary on the figure of £10 billion and how that was arrived at, if that would be useful to the committee.
The £10 billion refers to health and social care workers below RQF level 6—that is, those who came in when we reduced the level, which was mainly the adult social care change. The figure was arrived at through, per the modelling, the number of people from that route who will settle, as well as their dependants, using the figures that the Migration Advisory Committee talked about in terms of long-term net fiscal contribution of that cohort. It is approximately 350,000 people. The workers themselves had a net negative contribution of around £3,600 each, and I think that it was broadly around minus £60,000 for each dependant. That is how the £10 billion figure was arrived at.
So, although there are other impacts of wider migration, that specific cohort moving into ILR has a net fiscal cost and drag on the overall fiscal impact. That is what the Home Secretary was explaining.
Lord Moraes: I am not going to take up any more time but I just want to say that that is somewhat controversial; I will leave it there, though, because I know that there will be other questions on ILR.
Q156 Lord Henley: Minister, I want to pick up on one comment that you made. You said that all cultures are welcome. Are you sure that you want to stick with, “All cultures are welcome”—even those that are explicitly hostile to most British values?
Mike Tapp: That is a good question. I said, “All cultures are welcome”, but, of course, they have to integrate. I have emphasised that in the answers I have given so far. If people do not abide by British values and the way we live our lives, they are, of course, not welcome. For example, we have seen cases of sexual assault here that may have been normalised in the countries the perpetrators have come from. That sort of thing is absolutely not welcome in this country.
However, there are elements of all cultures that are absolutely fantastic. Personally, I welcome them here. Let me put an image behind this: one of the things that makes me so proud to be British is a street party. You have your Victoria sponge but you also have your jerk chicken. You have your Caribbean music, but you also have “The White Cliffs of Dover” playing. I think that we can live together and unite but, of course, the bad bits of any culture are not welcome.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Mr Hobbs, could you write to the committee to set out, in detail, that calculation and the assumptions underlying it that were used to reach the figure that the Home Secretary quoted? That would be very helpful.
Dan Hobbs: The methodology was published alongside the figure in the Migration Advisory Committee’s The Fiscal Impact of Migration, which is a published document.
Q157 The Chair: Okay; thank you for drawing our attention to that. Nevertheless, your comments would be very helpful. Before we move on, Minister, your title is Minister for Migration and Citizenship. How much do you value citizenship over indefinite leave to remain?
Mike Tapp: I value citizenship. It is an honour to be a citizen of our great country. At the same time, it is very much a personal choice, in my view, as to whether a person wants to become a citizen.
The Chair: Do you think that the Government should be doing more to promote citizenship? Should they even be thinking about what the benefits of citizenship should be in comparison to ILR?
Mike Tapp: We saw a 15% increase in citizenship applications in 2025, as compared to 2024, so it is increasing. For me, encouraging citizenship comes from rebuilding our great nation to where we have been in the past and ensuring that the public can unite. In the Home Office, part of my role and that of Minister Norris, the other immigration Minister—and, of course, the Home Secretary—is to set the conditions for that to thrive and take away the poisonous, at times, environment that has been partly caused by unprecedented levels of migration and a pace of change that has been too fast for the country.
The Chair: What specifically are you doing to promote citizenship?
Mike Tapp: Specifically, my view is that it is the decision of the individual to make that choice. Wider than that, promoting citizenship is about rebuilding our nation and making it great again.
The Chair: Why does that not apply to all the people who are in this country, whether they are seeking ILR, have got ILR or whatever? What are you doing specifically to promote that extra stage, which requires various hurdles to be overcome? What are you doing to promote it?
Mike Tapp: My view on that is that it is very much a personal choice. We have seen this—
The Chair: So you are not doing anything.
Mike Tapp: There is nothing specific to promote it.
The Chair: Nothing is being done by the Government to promote citizenship.
Mike Tapp: Every day, I am promoting citizenship by working hard to make our country what it has been in the past.
Q158 Baroness Bertin: I want to move on to what is perhaps another slightly controversial topic: data—or, perhaps more accurately, the lack thereof. Is the Home Office satisfied with the collection of exit data in the UK? This question is for both of you.
Mike Tapp: One of the frustrations in the Home Office and, I am sure, in other departments concerns the quality of the data that we hold. That is an inheritance we are working hard behind the scenes to fix. The digitisation of our border, with e-visas, ETAs and the future digitisation that we are bringing in, will help with this. I will not go into the exact methods at which we are looking at the moment, because there are still a lot of decisions to be made, but I certainly recognise the challenges that we face in not having as much quality data as we would wish to have.
Baroness Bertin: This is a very direct question: do you, as the Home Office and the Minister, know how many people are in the country at any given time and who they are?
Mike Tapp: This is one of the issues. We do not. There are gaps in our data there, which we are working hard to fix.
Baroness Bertin: I accept that you cannot say, “In two months’ time, we will know that figure”, but surely you would accept that there is an urgency around knowing that data. It is very important because it fuels levels of uncertainty and allows narratives—perhaps very damaging ones—to take hold.
Mike Tapp: I agree. One of the issues that we have is that we often do not know who has left over the past decade or so. It is really difficult to quantify, but I assure you that we are working on that.
Baroness Buscombe: Do you need more powers to be able to do that?
Dan Hobbs: No. Some elements of the UK border make that more difficult than others, in terms of how people can leave the country, but, as the Minister said, we are working hard through our digitisation of the border, the delivery of eVisa and the electronic travel authorisation to improve our data capability. As the Minister said, there is further work to up our capability.
Baroness Buscombe: That all relates to people coming and going now and in future, but we know that, in the past, many thousands of people came and did not leave. I speak as an ex-DWP Minister; that is how I know. I should say that.
Mike Tapp: There is lots to do on filling these data gaps. In the meantime, we are working hard to combat illegal work, which has increased by around 60% since we came into government. We are also looking to deport and remove more people than we have seen in around a decade. We are at around 60,000 now, and we are pushing harder; we will not stop where we are now. It is important to us that, if you do not have a right to be here, you should be removed or deported.
Q159 Lord Hogan-Howe: I want to pursue the same point. We have heard evidence from ex-Home Office people who pointed out that there is a gap in data, but, really, there is a gap in the strategy that asks for that data. There is no exit check because no one asked for it. What I have not heard clearly yet is whether this Government have that expectation, because, without it, they will never collect the data. The consequences are profound: criminality and other things but, mainly, pressure on social services. Is there clarity in government that we want data on who is leaving and who is entering? I take your colleague’s point that some of it is hard to obtain, but a lot of it is not. The symptoms of this problem are all over.
Mike Tapp: It is something that we are working on, absolutely.
Baroness Bertin: Can I ask one final follow-up question? If you come back to this committee in six months, will you have a clear idea then of who is in this country?
Mike Tapp: I will not put timeframes on this because of the complexities around it, but I can assure you that that is being worked out.
Q160 Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Looking at the proposal to extend the period of time before people can get ILR or settlement, have the Government done any modelling of the number and profile of people who will be on those longer routes to settlement for the next 10 years or more? If they have, what assessment has been made of the likely impacts on integration and cohesion?
Mike Tapp: There are impact assessments developing but, because we have just finished the consultation and there are still many decisions to be made, they are not finalised. Of course, that has been and will be considered; it will be published for you to see as well.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: I would be interested to know on what basis those assessments have been done because the people who will be on longer routes to settlement if this proposal goes through will, obviously, have no recourse to public funds. At the moment, the Migration Observatory tells us that there is almost no statistical evidence on people with no recourse to public funds—that is, on what they are doing, what benefits they are claiming and what their situations are. I am floundering. I wonder on what basis the Government’s assessments have been made, given that there is no evidence at the moment as to what is happening with people in that situation.
Mike Tapp: We do know that a significant number can settle over the next few years if we do not make these changes. Data is not needed to conclude that some of those people will likely need welfare benefits and housing. Because the numbers that could settle are so high at this time, the welfare bill is so high and housing is in short supply, it will have a negative impact on the country if we do not make these changes.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: What I am putting to you is that I am querying your very, if I may say so, alarmist and catastrophic language about all of this. At the moment, the Home Office does not have data on what people with no recourse to public funds are doing; nor does it have data on what people do when they acquire ILR. There is no data on what their benefit contributions or fiscal contributions are. So, again, I ask you: on what basis are the Government making their assessments of the future when they have no data on the past?
Mike Tapp: There is some data on the past. You are right that there are gaps in that, but the full impact assessment will of course be published at the right time when all decisions are made.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: It all seems very flaky to me, Minister, if I can put it to you in those terms. I have a final question. A number of organisations have called for an annual migration plan. Can you tell us the Government’s view on that proposal?
Mike Tapp: We are making the most sweeping changes to migration in a generation. They are needed but, of course, as I said earlier, the challenges that we face as a nation are what we have to respond to as a Government; that is under continuous review depending on what hand we are dealt.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Okay. Again, you are making claims about the scale of the impact on various aspects of our society, yet I cannot see much evidence for you to make those claims. That is what I have been trying to get out of you: what evidence have you been drawing on to be able to make those claims? You have not convinced me yet, Minister, I am afraid.
Mike Tapp: That is fair. You are, of course, within your rights to disagree, but we have to listen to what people are saying and seeing on the issues around some lack of integration and contribution and the division that that is stoking. Our mission is to overcome that, so that, as a nation, there is not this opportunity to exploit it and, in some instances, turn to racism. For me, that is really important. These are challenges that we see as a nation. We have the figures around how many people have come here in such a short period of time. That pace and scale of change is unprecedented. That is a fact. We need to slow it down, but, at the same time, we need to form an immigration system that encourages integration and contribution so that we can unite as a nation.
The Chair: Is it not the case, Minister, that, when you say you are listening to public voices, the public really do not have any more information than we have, and a lot of their thinking about these issues is based on myth and story rather than direct, clear data, which we simply do not have? Is it not also the case that you have just said that we are in an unprecedented situation, yet we know that the figures have now gone down very dramatically? You did not mention that. You just sat and said, “Oh, we are responding to this huge increase”. You did not say, “We are responding to this very significant reduction”.
Mike Tapp: There is clear data on that.
The Chair: That is the bit where there is data, and the data shows that the figures have gone down.
Mike Tapp: They have gone down, but that does not negate the fact that there were unprecedented arrivals in a very short time, and the general public have struggled with that pace and scale of change, as have our systems and infrastructure. It is important, and it is our responsibility, to deal with that—but, of course, without forgetting the fundamentals of what it means to be British and the compassion that is built into the system that we are forming, for example, by looking at safe and legal routes to help combat the illegal side of things. There is a lot of work being done across the board here, but there is clear data on numbers of arrivals into the country.
The Chair: I know that Baroness Buscombe wants to come in, but I am going to ask her to hold for a minute, because I want to stick on this theme of the data, impact assessments and so on.
Baroness Buscombe: Mine is on that.
The Chair: I will just move to Lord Tope first, so we can cover it, and then bring Baroness Buscombe in.
Q161 Lord Tope: My question is about impact assessments. What is the Home Office approach to producing them?
Mike Tapp: When decisions are made, rules are changed and legislation is laid, impact assessments will be published.
Lord Tope: Is that always?
Mike Tapp: You may be referring to the specific impact assessment last year that there was a delay in producing. Is that correct?
Lord Tope: Go on—tell us about it.
Mike Tapp: There was a delay to that, because there were some complexities around behaviours that we needed to iron out, essentially. It was published in December last year, a little later than we—or, I imagine, you—would have hoped.
Lord Tope: Would impact assessments be produced with White Papers?
Mike Tapp: Impact assessments should be published when decisions and changes are made.
Lord Tope: Not with White Papers. White Papers are not necessarily decisions yet, are they?
Mike Tapp: No, my view is that impact assessments should be published when decisions are made.
The Chair: So you would have a White Paper that the public read and respond to but they are not provided with data about the impact of the recommendations they are asked to comment on?
Mike Tapp: Impact assessments are produced when the decisions are made.
The Chair: You have said that. I am asking this question: do you think it is right to invite the public, and other politicians, to respond to White Paper proposals when they are not given the impact assessment, with the impact of those particular proposals, to help them inform their view as to whether they support or reject them?
Mike Tapp: If we look at the latest White Paper, a part of the idea of a consultation is, of course, to learn more about the impacts so that we can make the right decisions. In my view, to put an impact assessment before decisions are made and when we are consulting may well skew that process slightly.
Lord Tope: Is an impact assessment not part of the decision-making process? It is what leads you to making a well-informed decision, is it not?
Mike Tapp: It certainly is. I think the debate we are having is—
Lord Tope: Why publish it only after you have made the decision?
Mike Tapp: I think the debate here is on what point we produce it. I think we are in the right place in producing an impact assessment when a decision is made because, before that, you are still assessing and analysing that impact, and a consultation should be a part of that. Is there anything to add?
Dan Hobbs: Yes—we bring forward the impact assessment at the point of legislation, be that Immigration Rules or other legislation. For the package on Thursday, I think we published full impact assessments alongside it. The earned settlement paper also included a significant chapter around data on what was happening on flows and predictions around contributions and settlement. There was a clear evidence and data base to inform that decision, but, as the Minister said, the Government cannot prejudge a consultation. Otherwise, you are getting ahead. To fully model the exact impacts when you are consulting—so there is very open consultation around transitional provisions and whether there should be any exemptions for certain groups—means that any impact assessment is subject to those changes. The Government cannot pre-empt those changes.
Lord Tope: What was the rationale for separating out main applicants and their dependants, rather than treating applicants and their dependants as part of a cohesive whole—the family whole, if you like?
Mike Tapp: The point of consultation is to ensure that we iron out any changes that we are looking at making and hear all views. On a lot of the earned settlement plans, the decisions simply had not been made.
Lord Tope: What assessment has been made of introducing settlement changes to BNO and family visa holders?
Mike Tapp: We have already announced that they are exempt from the 10-year extension, and the other decisions are at consultation. I have met with numerous stakeholders to talk about the impact of minimum income requirements, for example, and decisions are still being made on those aspects.
Lord Tope: What assessment has been made of changes to the statutory duty to support refugees?
Dan Hobbs: I will come in. That is actually about asylum seekers. It is revoking EU legislation—a directive that is legacy legislation—where the Secretary of State was under a duty to move it to a power. That brings it back to domestic legislation. It is the duty to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. The focus here is on ensuring that, where people can work or have other means to support themselves, there is not a duty on the taxpayer and the state to support those individuals. I think that is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the statutory instrument that is being brought forward and commences from June. It is to deal with a very specific issue where there are people in supported asylum accommodation at the cost of the taxpayer who have a right to work, and to ensure that the Government can remove support where people are involved in criminality or non-compliance with the asylum process. The Government’s position is that those people should not be supported at the cost of the taxpayer where they are not complying with the rules.
Mike Tapp: You have probably seen stories in the media around individuals in hotels who are also driving Audi A4s and receiving money from home. It is partly dealing with that abuse as well.
Q162 Baroness Buscombe: This seems an obvious question—we all know that Whitehall tends to work in silos on data—but are you working closely with, for example, HMRC and the DWP? The DWP has an enormous research department, with a wealth of research that is updated all the time; it also gets information through universal credit. We feel that there is no data, but can you try to change our minds a little?
Dan Hobbs: We work with HMRC and the DWP on ensuring that benefits and right to work are in compliance with the legislation—so that, if people do not have those rights, it is dealt with—and also as part of the Labour Market Evidence Group, which was announced in the immigration White Paper back in May. The Migration Advisory Committee worked with expert bodies as part of its fiscal analysis report and also with regard to how it can support the skills agenda and draw on the data from the Labour Market Evidence Group, the DWP, HMRC and the Treasury in order to shape and develop the migration system that was set out as part of it.
Baroness Buscombe: Can you also check, to some degree, who is paying national insurance and all that sort of stuff?
Dan Hobbs: To a degree, yes, but, obviously, it depends on the exact status of the individual.
Q163 Lord Hogan-Howe: I have quite a long question; I shall do my best to explain it slowly. How will the Home Office ensure that the complex new contribution-based settlement rules are implemented without repeating the documentation and decision-making failures that contributed to the Windrush scandal? How are the recommendations from the Windrush Lessons Learned Review progress updates being embedded in this process?
Mike Tapp: It is really important that we do not repeat that sort of scandal. I meet the commissioner regularly to talk about precisely these potential risks and other things. This is all being considered in the consultation. Unfortunately, I cannot give you any clear answers today, but it will be laid out, post consultation, when decisions have been made.
Lord Hogan-Howe: In the conversations that you have already had, have there been any warning signs in terms of things you should definitely avoid, given what has happened before?
Mike Tapp: There have been no specifics. It is important that we listen to any potential concerns. There are no specifics at this time, but the consultation may well raise some; we will look at those and, obviously, I will take them very seriously.
Lord Hogan-Howe: How will the Home Office manage reviewing the status of refugees every two and a half years, given that it is already quite a challenge?
Mike Tapp: It is often difficult to deliver in any department, but what we have seen from that department within the Home Office under Minister Norris is a significant increase in processing—over 50%—so that backlog is coming down. It is on us as Ministers and senior officials to ensure that that is delivered on time. I am confident that we will.
Lord Hogan-Howe: Going back to the impact assessment, does that mean “employ more people”?
Mike Tapp: I will hand over to Mr Hobbs.
Dan Hobbs: The 30 months refer to people who remain on what is termed “core protection”. The Government plan to open up study and work pathways for refugees in-country. It is the intention that those people move on to those pathways, where they are highly likely to contribute more and have better integration outcomes. Core protection is the base level of protection that we expect people to stay on; that was set out by the Home Secretary. We do not expect all refugees granted asylum in-country to remain on core protection.
As the Minister said, 67% of asylum claims are now receiving an initial decision within six months. They have the highest number of decisions made. So productivity is going up and the case load in the asylum system is coming down very dramatically.
It is also the case that this is not about re-looking at the whole asylum claim; it is about whether the country situation for that individual, on the basis of their claim, is now safe or has changed. It is not about revisiting the whole decision; it is about doing an assessment. There are different ways and methods to triage that using AI and other things, which will help to make it an efficient operation. We are not anticipating an uplift in headcount to deal with that, not least because of the productivity improvements that we are making at the initial decision stage.
Lord Hogan-Howe: You have explained clearly how the process will change. I get that. I am not sure yet what the estimation is of how much more work, if any, there is.
Dan Hobbs: That will need to be modelled exactly once we establish how many people are staying on core protection and where technology and other things can triage. For certain countries, we will know that the country position has not changed, so it is highly unlikely; that may be a very quick process. There may be others that need an individual claim. Any refusal of leave will obviously be taken on a case-by-case basis but, having worked through this with the teams, we do not anticipate that it will require an uplift in the existing resources.
Lord Hogan-Howe: When will you know?
Dan Hobbs: Well, some of this will, in part, be modelling and forecasting until you go into live operations and see how many people move through. As I say, the intention is to get more people who have refugee status into work and/or study, which would then establish them on longer pathways of temporary leave before they are able to achieve settlement.
Lord Hogan-Howe: One of the ways in which you are developing the system is to measure volunteering—that being the criteria for being an accredited person, if you like—so, how will that be checked to make sure that it is genuine?
Mike Tapp: With reference to earned settlement? This is something that we are still working through in the consultation. I apologise for not giving a clear answer on that; that is always the trouble with coming to a committee just after a consultation. We are working through that, and it will be clearer in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe: I have one follow-up question on data, which we considered in a previous meeting. I realise the problems in collecting data—I do not think that any of us are immune to them—but one of the things that has intrigued me is that, when asylum seekers and people who do not have leave to stay or are beyond their visa die, somebody notices that they should not have been here. How many of those people who should have left but died here do we collect data on? That would include the completion of a visa, for example, but they did not leave; we would now know where they are, even if they were repatriated. I give that as an example of what looks to me like a lack of interest in that type of data.
Mike Tapp: Honestly, I do not know whether we collect that data. I suspect not. That is a good point. This is why we need to improve our data—
Lord Hogan-Howe: I presume that the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages is interested in this. I give that as an example.
Mike Tapp: I agree that there is certainly a data gap. It is vital that we address this.
Q164 Lord Bach: May I go back to one of Lord Hogan-Howe’s questions briefly? This one is for the director-general, because he replied on it. It is about reviewing the status of refugees every 2.5 years. I realise that you cannot give absolute figures, but is there no idea in the department as to what proportion of the people who will be affected by these changes will be reviewed every 2.5 years? Will it be 10%? Will it be 80%? Is there any view? It is obviously going to mean much more work, as Lord Hogan-Howe suggested. It is not going to be a small amount who are reviewed every 2.5 years.
Dan Hobbs: Anyone who remains on core protection will be reviewed, because their period of leave will be 30 months. On precisely determining the proportions, you can model what percentage of in-country grants will remain, but that is, by definition, a model. You are modelling through behaviour and what happens with employment rates, but the streamlined review process will also depend on world situations, which can be volatile and move. Therefore, giving precision on the proportion of people is difficult, but anyone who stays on core protection will be reviewed.
The intensity and level of review, including how much resource it takes, will depend on the individual cases, the nationalities that flow through from Monday—because this applies to people who claimed as of last Monday—and world situations. As I said, we will know that some nationals, from countries where there have been protracted long-term situations, are likely to have a continuation of their leave unless those situations change. Some of this will be dictated by world situations at that point.
Lord Bach: But there are no figures at the moment—not even vague ones?
Dan Hobbs: There is modelling based on everybody staying on versus 10% being on core protection, but, again, those are internal MI models at the moment, rather than a prediction.
The Chair: If you have your modelling and these vague ideas, how many additional staff are you expecting to be in the Home Office in three years’ time?
Dan Hobbs: We are not projecting that this would require additional resourcing into the asylum system, partly because we are making a whole range of changes to transform the existing operation and the Government’s wider measures, which are intended to restore order and control into the asylum system. Again, this is one part of an overall package of reform that the Government are proposing.
The Chair: With the increased emphasis on data—data collection, data analysis, cross-party working, the requirement every two and a half years to check on people, the difficulty of assessing whether somebody has done proper volunteering as part of their own settlement model and so on—are you saying that there will be no increase in staff in the Home Office to deal with any of those things?
Dan Hobbs: Sorry, I thought you were talking specifically about core protection.
The Chair: No, I am talking about the proposals overall. What is your current estimate of the increase in the proposals that we have heard so far? Some are still being consulted on, or they have finished being consulted on, but you have not finalised reading through them; none the less, what is your gut belief about the size of Home Office staffing in three years’ time? Is it up, down or staying the same?
Mike Tapp: I would like to avoid laying out a staffing plan for the Home Office here today. There are modernisations going on across the whole of the Home Office, including the borders, which will take away the need for tens, perhaps hundreds, of staff on front lines, for example.
The Chair: Not the way it is working at the moment.
Mike Tapp: Modernisation is just an example, and the use of AI will free up a lot of workers as well. There is a big package here. If we feel that there is a need to employ more, we will, of course, be open and it will happen, but these assessments are still ongoing.
The Chair: When all the impact assessments that we were debating earlier are produced, will they include a staffing impact?
Mike Tapp: I cannot commit to that today.
The Chair: How would somebody know whether to support it if you cannot tell me whether it will require huge funding for additional staff in the Home Office? How do I decide how to vote when you bring the proposals before the House?
Mike Tapp: Home Office staffing will, of course, be considered in this. What we will not be doing is publishing impact assessments and making commitments to legislation to deliver it if we cannot; that would be poor, politically. For anything that we announce and seek to deliver, we will, of course, deliver it, and there will be the right number of staff to do so. Do you want to come in?
Dan Hobbs: I will just say that, as advice goes to Ministers and the accounting officer, we obviously look at the accounting officer tests, which include feasibility, regularity, propriety and value for money; affordability is part of that. Overall, the spending review sees the Home Office allocation reduced. The assumption, in line with wider government reforms, is that the Home Office will reduce. As the Minister said, there is a range of transformations in how we deliver our services, such as digitisation of the border and transformation of other services, which are all part of the picture of the overall resourcing for the Home Office.
Q165 Lord Bach: This is quite a long question, but I think it really comes down to one issue. I will read the question and then shorten it. It is for both of you, really. What analysis has been carried out of the cumulative cost of fees, from entry to citizenship, for typical family scenarios under the proposed model, and what consideration has been given to caps, instalment options or wider fee waivers to avoid wealth-based exclusion from secure status?
I think it comes to this: it is a long way of asking why fees, at all stages, are so much higher than those charged by other countries. We have evidence. I am quoting from evidence that was given to us in November last year: “One distinction is it is a lot more expensive in Britain than almost anywhere else. It is now £1,700. I could get six quite attractive citizenships—America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, France all together—and still have change from my £1,700”. We have also been told that the actual cost recovery rate is 256%. This, Minister, is well before your time as a Minister, I think, which is why I say it is for both of you. How can we defend a scheme such as that, charging much more than any other like country? Is that not grossly unfair on those who are applying, particularly those who do not have very much money? Perhaps the director-general can answer first.
Mike Tapp: I am happy to start. There are complex equations to ensure that we are coming up with the right fees, and my belief is that we are in the right place. There is cost recovery in ensuring that the system can run—we have a relatively complex immigration system—and that there is less burden and strain on the taxpayer. To bring these fees down, the likelihood is that the taxpayer would have to pick up the cost of that. For me, it is right that those who are using the immigration systems are the ones who fund it. It is a valuable privilege to live in this country, and I see our rates as competitive. You have listed a few that you say are cheaper, but, of course, there are other aspects. For example, health insurance in the United States—and other nations too, I am sure—significantly increases the cost. My belief is that this is competitive, keeps the burden away from taxpayers and ensures we can run a relatively complex immigration system efficiently. Is there anything you would like to add?
Dan Hobbs: I will just say that I think it has been a long-standing policy of successive Governments that those who use the immigration system pay for it. While it over-recovers the direct cost of processing the individual element, it does fund the entirety of the migration and border system. It is also the case, as the Minister said, that the immigration health surcharge is distinct from our immigration fees. When you consider it, our visa fee is comparable to that of many countries. The access to the NHS that comes alongside the immigration health surcharge is different, because other countries require an insurance-based scheme; that money—the immigration health surcharge—goes straight to the Department of Health and Social Care to fund the NHS. In many respects, our fees—the pure fees—are broadly similar to lots of our comparators. I do not have the direct comparisons, I am afraid, on citizenship; as the Minister said, it also reflects the benefits that come with settlement. There are also fee waivers, which are available for compassionate and compelling reasons, on some of our temporary routes and family compelling routes. People can make an application for a fee waiver—that is open to people.
Lord Bach: That is very interesting. There really are fee waivers. Does it happen often? Otherwise, it seems such a grossly unfair system on those who have little resource.
Dan Hobbs: Where it would breach our international obligations, there is the ability to apply for a fee waiver—mainly on family Article 8 claims.
Lord Bach: Do you have a percentage for that?
Dan Hobbs: We can write with the number if we have it. It is a system that is well understood, and is used, where people apply under certain ECHR family routes where they apply for a fee waiver—
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Hobbs. I am sure you did not mean what you just said. You said you will let us have the figure “if we have it”. You are not suggesting that this is an area where there is yet more data unavailable, are you? What did you mean by that?
Dan Hobbs: No, sorry. I do not have it with me now.
The Chair: I just wanted to be absolutely clear. Thank you. Just before we move off from that, returning to your role as Minister for Citizenship, are you personally happy with the situation—notwithstanding where the money goes and so on—where some people will be unable to gain citizenship simply because they cannot afford the fee?
Mike Tapp: My view is that to be a British citizen is valuable, and you would need to be able to meet that fee to become one. That is a demonstration of your contribution and integration too. But, of course, as with the other routes—the ILR, for example—these fees are set to ensure that the taxpayers are not taking the burden.
The Chair: I understand your argument. I was simply asking a question: are you comfortable with a situation where some people will effectively be denied citizenship because they cannot afford it?
Mike Tapp: “Comfortable” is the wrong word.
The Chair: It is the question I asked.
Mike Tapp: I think that we are in the right place here.
The Chair: Okay, thank you.
Q166 Baroness Buscombe: I will move on to deprivation orders. The power to dispossess through citizenship powers has been significantly expanded since 2000, but that was over a quarter of a century ago, and the world has changed exponentially. Do you feel that the permissible reasons for depriving someone of their citizenship are the correct ones? Also, what constitutes “public good”? That, of course, is a very broad term, but, in your view, and in that of the director-general, it would be helpful for us to just hear a bit more about “public good”, because the numbers of people who are deprived of citizenship are quite small and, presumably, focused. Over to you, Minister.
Mike Tapp: This is a tool that must be used in the most extreme cases. “Public good” is a useful phrase to have, because it can be used to assess on an individual case. What is negative for the nation in one moment can change, depending on current events and security, for example. I think it is right to have that in there, but this must be used for the most extreme circumstances only.
Baroness Buscombe: Are you comfortable that the steps in place to reach that decision are correct?
Mike Tapp: Yes, in general. This is at the Home Secretary’s discretion. It is a difficult decision to be made, but I do think it is the right decision.
Baroness Buscombe: Do you want to add anything?
Dan Hobbs: I would just say that there are two elements to deprivation. One is the power to deprive because of fraud; then there is the public good, which is reserved, as the Minister said, for the highest harm, and is used sparingly. All those deprivations come with a right of appeal, so there is a clear process. As I say, it is used for the highest harm grounds, but the definition does provide for Ministers to look at individual circumstances and the harm that that causes.
Baroness Buscombe: I am surprised, in a way, that fraud is singled out, certainly in our explanatory notes here, and that 151 people have been removed on that basis. I think that sounds quite a small number, given that the extent of fraud in this country is extraordinary. So what about serious crime?
Mike Tapp: Serious crime is also a consideration. I think that fraud is if you—
Dan Hobbs: If you have obtained your citizenship by fraud.
Baroness Buscombe: If you have obtained your citizenship by fraud?
Mike Tapp: Yes, hence that being relatively low. But serious organised crime is also a consideration.
Baroness Buscombe: Okay. That was not very clear in the notes. But if you have committed heinous crimes, should you be deprived of your citizenship?
Mike Tapp: It depends on the situation in hand and the individual circumstances.
Baroness Buscombe: Is this something that you, or the Home Secretary, might be looking at?
Mike Tapp: It is not something that I am looking at, but it is important that it is used in the right circumstances.
Q167 Lord Dubs: Minister, I am sure you would not expect the occasion to go by without asking about Shamima Begum. It seems to me, given that other countries have taken people who are in the same situation that she is in back from northern Syria, that we are the outlier in all this. Minister David Hanson—I like him—has pleaded that the thing is sub judice because it has gone to the European Court of Human Rights. In the history of sub judice, I am not aware of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights rendering something incapable of being discussed in the British Parliament, but that is perhaps a wider constitutional issue. Surely this is a woman who has now been given a life sentence, because the Bangladeshis will not take her and she has lost her British citizenship. What is her future? It seems to be a breach of human rights. There are a few more people there, particularly women with children.
Mike Tapp: I will not comment on an individual case, but I will say that, broadly, if an individual joins and supports a terror group, they should not be here. I will not go into any more detail on that specific case.
Lord Dubs: Well, that puts us in a difficulty, because sometimes abuses of human rights do centre on individuals; that is how we deal with human rights. It could be argued that it is not a terrorist case; that the woman was trafficked as a 15 year-old from east London, and that we have responsibilities for people who are brought up here and who have spent all their lives here, and who are now being sentenced to life detention in northern Syria. Surely there must be some way in which we as parliamentarians can engage with the issue of the deprivation of that person’s citizenship.
Mike Tapp: I maintain my statement that, if you join a terror organisation to harm this country, you should not be here. Of course, there are rights of appeal, and there are numerous levels of courts that those who disagree can go through.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: She was a child when she made that decision.
Mike Tapp: I am not going to comment on an individual case.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: But she was a child.
Mike Tapp: I am not going to comment on an individual case.
Q168 Baroness Cash: I had some questions about integration, but, given the publication of the social cohesion strategy, which is going to be looking at all of this, I thought I would ask you something slightly different. There has been very polarised conversation around digital ID, both in Parliament and in the press, and there are alternative ways. There are also significant gaps in the data, and there is great difficulty, historically and currently, in tracking people who come here, and whether they have left.
Have you considered, or will you undertake to the committee that you will at least consider, the possibility of something like a social security number identification system, which works well elsewhere? The Government themselves have just introduced something referred to as a “unique identifier” for children in care, for example, during the passing of the children’s well-being Bill. I really want to get to the question of how we are going to close these data gaps and begin going forward to really know where people are, whether they have left, and what they are doing in the system.
Mike Tapp: Those are good points. The Cabinet Office is leading on digital ID. The consultation, if it has not been launched, is launching very soon—possibly this week, possibly next week. It will be very soon. All those valid questions must be asked and considered within the consultation. Apologies, there is another consultation.
Baroness Cash: That is okay. That is a perfectly good answer, but my point was slightly different: as a subject, digital ID is very divisive and has very polarised positions. There are alternatives; that is what I was suggesting. I was really hoping for an undertaking that you might take that back and make sure that we look at those, because they could be very easily deployed. It would not require our entire nation to have to move on to a digital ID system, but we could satisfy the data gaps.
Mike Tapp: We will take that away.
Q169 The Chair: There are just a couple of other questions before I bring in Lord Henley. Picking up on all the debates that we had earlier about impact assessments for various proposals, in the past we used to have the Migration Impacts Forum, which looked at all of these and provided information and help to the Government. What is the Government’s thinking about the reintroduction of the Migration Impacts Forum?
Mike Tapp: It is not something that I have looked at. Of course, we put a lot of emphasis on the Migration Advisory Committee when forming our policies and in the consultation, too. My feeling is that there is a lot to consult on and that we have sufficient bodies to consult on that.
The Chair: The value of the Migration Impacts Forum was that it gave advice, of course, but it also kept an eye on exactly what was happening—whether or not what you predicted would happen was happening, and so on. It would be helpful if you could at least agree to take that away and have a look at it.
The other interesting area that has been raised with us on many occasions is the issue of language. I know that you have not had time to study the document thoroughly yet, but I have. Interestingly, it says very clearly in there that you are going to look at finding ways of making the provision of ESOL, the English language and so on much wider. That is very welcome but, of course, it will have a financial impact. We are also advised that it may be difficult to find the people to do it. Given the wider issues, what is your thinking on the importance of language? How confident can we be that, in saying that they are going to explore ways of widening access to it, the Government will actually deliver?
Mike Tapp: That is welcome, absolutely. Right now, we are talking to each other. Without talking, it is very difficult to form relationships, to integrate and to contribute. This is a reason why, as part of earned settlement, we are increasing the English language requirement. I absolutely welcome the idea of taking this into communities to help upskill those who may be struggling to speak English. It is vital that we communicate. We have all been on holidays. As Brits, we are sometimes not the best at learning other languages, but, if you are living in another country, it is important that you can talk to each other. That is the fundamental thing here.
Q170 Lord Henley: Can we end on the Life in the UK Test? We understand that the Government envisage refreshing that test; the Chair referred to this. Only yesterday, the MHCLG published Protecting What Matters. I imagine that the Home Office had some input into that document, which, as I understand it, talks of refreshing the content of the Life in the UK Test; I have not read it, although our chair, who is more assiduous than most of us, has. As I say, I imagine that your department had some sort of input into it, even though it is from another department. I wonder whether you can comment on that.
Mike Tapp: Yes. The contract for the Life in the UK Test expires in 2027. We will ensure that the next iteration of it serves the purpose it should—that is, the system used is not overly complicated and the questions both are sensible and reflect your ability to integrate. That will be looked at when it goes out to tender and will ensure that the test improves on what it is now. I should add that the test’s satisfaction rate is quite high at the moment: around 92% of the customers who use it are satisfied. So it is not in a bad place.
The Chair: What does it achieve?
Mike Tapp: It is a way of demonstrating understanding of the country in which you are looking to settle or of which you are looking to become a citizen. It is important that that is reflected in the questions. As the Minister, I am happy to take a hands-on approach to that when we look at it in 2027.
Lord Henley: I want to ask one other question. Why is the MHCLG leading on this?
Mike Tapp: The Life in the UK Test is something that the Home Office produces for those who are looking to settle here; it was brought in in 2005, I think. The test for those who are seeking citizenship was brought in in 2007—the dates are possibly the other way round. So it has stood for quite some time.
The Chair: If I was going to spend some time working abroad and my company was sending me there, or something, it would almost certainly send me on a course that would give me a flavour of what life will be like in the country in which I am going to work. A lot of people run those sorts of courses. Would it not be far better to run courses such as those for people to go to, rather than having a tick-box exercise of questions that, frankly, just about everybody takes the piss out of?
Mike Tapp: I certainly encourage private companies running courses; that is positive. As a Government, we have resources that need to be best placed and best used, and we have limited finances. This test attempts to do that, and I will look at it before or after it goes out to tender in 2027—if I am still in this role, that is—to ensure that it is doing its best to achieve what we hope it will achieve. I am happy to hear your opinions on it either now or in future.
The Chair: As one of a number of people in this room who have held ministerial posts, your chances of being in post at the end of 2027 are remote; that is crazy and should be changed.
Mike Tapp: Agreed.
The Chair: To be honest, I am really disappointed in your response. Basically, you have said, “I accept that courses or sessions of the type you’ve described are really good, very helpful and great things, but we cannot afford to do them so we are going to have a Mickey Mouse testing system”. I am sorry about my language, but people joke about it and the satisfaction rate is high because it is a doddle: you read the book, learn it and then tick a box. No wonder everybody is satisfied with it, but that does not mean they have learned anything about living in this country.
Mike Tapp: I take your point; it is well made.
The Chair: Do you agree with my point, rather than just taking it?
Mike Tapp: This is a course with a handbook and questions at the end. That could be what many private companies are also delivering. Bear in mind that the pass rate is around 70%, so not everyone is passing this test. Does that mean it is in the right place? I will need to look into that in more detail when there is a new iteration of it.
The Chair: Okay. What is the height of the London Eye?
Mike Tapp: I have not—
The Chair: What is the height of the London Eye?
Mike Tapp: I do not know the height of the London Eye.
The Chair: So you would fail the test.
Mike Tapp: I am confident that I would be able to pass the test. I am a proud Brit. I have served this country and been to war for this country.
The Chair: Can you tell this committee what relevance knowing the height of the London Eye has for anybody who wants to integrate into this community?
Mike Tapp: I do not disagree. When this comes up again in 2027, if I am still in post—or even if I am not—I will take a keen interest in making sure that the test is right and reflects what people need to know when they are living in this country.
The Chair: I can tell you one thing: this committee will still be here in 2027 and will follow up with you on that.
Lord Bach: You wanted our views. Why do you not scrap it altogether and spend the money, or whatever resource is there, on having better citizenship ceremonies? As you said, access to citizenship is a really important thing. We all agree on that, I think. Would this money not be much better spent on something that has been, as the Chair said, derided up and down for a long time now?
Baroness Cash: Can I just clarify that that is Lord Bach’s view, not the committee’s view?
Lord Bach: I have expressed my view.
Mike Tapp: I take your point. Of course, there is a contract in place; I would like to make it better if there is an opportunity to do so in future.
Q171 Lord Moraes: I am a bit baffled by something; I should have mentioned it earlier. You mentioned this cohort of ILR. We should say that they are very much in the firing line, but this cohort of people is providing in need areas in our economy: the NHS, care and hospitality. Some of them are creating jobs. They are much younger than Britain as a whole. They are far less likely to claim benefits than Britain as a whole. They are very economically active and do not tend to use the NHS. How can that turn into figures that show that there is a £10 billion drain when—this is the bit I should have said earlier—your own department’s figures are showing a net fiscal benefit of this cohort every year up to 2045? Is that not the case?
Dan Hobbs: On total skilled work, the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on fiscal impacts looks specifically at the health and social care visa below RQF level 6—so broadly, what was opened up to adult social care—and there is a net lifetime cost to that cohort. Overall, in the MAC’s report, dependence across all the skilled routes has a net cost over their lifetime. There are distinctive factors about health care workers below RQF level 6 that are different, both in terms of demographics and number of dependants, to other elements of the skilled worker. That is set out in the MAC’s report, which also says that temporary migration from that cohort is more beneficial for the UK than settlement.[1]
Lord Moraes: In relation to Baroness Hughes’s request on putting something in writing, can you say what your departmental figures are? It makes sense as to what I think they are. All the committee wants is facts and data. I am not making a point. You can dislike people on ILR if you want—fine, that can be your policy—but we need to tell the British public the facts and data as objectively as we can. When there are clear facts and fiscal data, is it not a bit worrying that we are not telling the British public them before we make a decision? It may be that, after we tell them, they still want to put pressure on people on ILR—that is fine—but should we not be doing that?
Dan Hobbs: We have published that and set it out; that was part of the Home Secretary’s transparency data, and it was referred to as part of the published materials. Obviously, as the Minister said, we have made no final decision on the route to settlement for those cohorts or transitional provisions because that is subject to the consultation.
Mike Tapp: I should just add that we do not dislike people on ILR. When we are making—
Lord Moraes: Sorry, but what about, “They’re a £10 billion drain”?
Mike Tapp: When we are making assessments around economic migration, we must consider the economics of it. Of course, the workings of this have been laid out. You are not wrong in saying that there are many people who are contributing in other ways. Part of the consultation is ensuring that that is captured, because we are looking at a system that is fair as well. It has to benefit Britain and our country economically, but, of course, that fairness has to be built in. We are looking at all of that in the consultation.
Lord Moraes: My point is that the British public might start disliking them if they think that they are a massive fiscal drain, when the facts actually show that there are net fiscal benefits.
Mike Tapp: We have to be transparent in the decisions we are making, and we are talking about the economy here.
Q172 Baroness Buscombe: I cannot remember how many millions were spent back in 2019 by our then Minister for Employment on language courses. These were taxpayer-funded language courses, particularly for women in communities where they were finding it difficult to access learning English. Do you know what has happened to any of that?
Mike Tapp: I do not.
Baroness Buscombe: English language is something that we have talked a lot about; you have referenced it as well, in terms of supporting integration. We need to track those funds to make sure that they are going to the right people and make sure that any system or support we put in place—it is so important for those women, for example—reaches them and does the job we asked it to do, which you, as the Minister, will now be asking it to do.
Mike Tapp: I do not have specific detail on that, but I know that the MHCLG has put out its report.
Baroness Buscombe: That was from DWP.
Mike Tapp: Yes. I know that, within the MHCLG report, it is looking at taking this into communities.
Baroness Buscombe: But was that happening? That is really my question. Was it reaching the right people who need the help?
Mike Tapp: It is absolutely relevant. I do not know the answer.
Q173 Baroness Hughes of Stretford: I do not think that we will get to the bottom of this, but you have picked up that we are concerned to understand the basis on which the £10 billion figure has been produced. Certainly, my colleague and I have not yet been satisfied. I hope that our officials can help us by looking at the document to which you, Mr Hobbs, referred.
In relation to the point you have just made—that it is people on the lower skill end of the group of people who came into work in our care sector to whom the £10 billion figure applies—can you tell us whether any value was put into the equation that produced that figure, in terms of the value of being able to have people working in the care sector when we could not employ indigenous people to work in that sector? How was that accounted for in this calculation?
Mike Tapp: That calculation is laid out on the Government’s website, so do interrogate that further. In terms of contribution from care workers that is not necessarily economic, it is absolutely valued; that will be taken into account when final decisions are made.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: Do you see what I am saying? It is a more general point. The reason why the visas were brought in was because, at that point, we could not get people in this country to work in that sector. What value of that social good of being able to staff care homes was included in the calculation?
Mike Tapp: Around 40,000 vacancies were filled by around 600,000 people. There is mass exploitation within that industry. I have been to car washes with Immigration Enforcement and met people who are here on health and social care visas cleaning cars. The exploitation of this route—this is why we have frozen it, by the way—was absolutely untold and still goes on, so freezing it was the right thing to do. Coming to the right decision for those who are genuinely working in care and helping people is really important, too.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford: That is helpful; thank you very much.
Dan Hobbs: I just want to say that the in-country route for people on the health and social care visa below RQF level 6 will remain open until 2028, so, although the route to settlement will change, it does not mean that those people, if they are working and have a sponsor, cannot renew their leave to remain. It is not the case that they all have to leave. We are retaining them; that is linked to the wider government review of skills and pay in the social care sector, which was set out as part of the immigration White Paper more broadly, in terms of how we were dealing with that particular industry and the Labour Market Evidence Group as part of that.
As the Minister said, we have already closed the route to new dependants coming into the country and those from overseas, in part because of the volumes we were seeing. We have curtailed 1,000 sponsors, and we are working with health and social care to rematch those people who came in on the route to vacancies in that sector, then considering the wider labour market situation and the Government’s desire to see the citizen population move into vacancies.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Our time has come to an end. Minister, you and I can both be enormously grateful to our Committee Clerk because he has told me that the height of the London Eye is 135 metres—so you now know that, plus the price of a pint of milk.
Mike Tapp: I have been on it a couple of times, so I am sure I had that information at some point.
The Chair: There you are. It is what you learn from coming to a Select Committee.
I thank both you and Mr Hobbs for being with us. Thank you for your honest answers. Obviously, we are writing our report. You are doing lots of things. Let us hope that, somewhere or other, we will coalesce and come up with similar proposals. Who knows? We look forward to what you do, and I am sure that you are looking forward to our report in due course. With that, I thank you both very much indeed. This public evidence session is now concluded.
