Certificate of Common Sponsorship

16:30:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Before I start, I pay tribute to Unison South West, which has been at the forefront of this campaign. It has a number of care workers and members in the Gallery to listen to the debate. The stark reality for migrant workers in the UK is that they are under-protected by our employment rights framework and victimised by our immigration rules. Migrant social care workers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of ill treatment because of the hostile environment in which they find themselves. Any worker who challenges bad practices by their employer puts their ability to live and work in the UK at great risk. This is a real danger in a sector with high levels of staff turnover. It is fragmented and privatised, characterised by many small employers running on tight profit margins—some of the profits are extracted from the companies for shareholder dividends. This important debate therefore draws attention to the power that employers are given by our visa system. As the visa sponsor, employers have ultimate power over the lives of workers. Unscrupulous employers have greater powers over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status. If they lose their job, they will lose the right to work and live in the UK. The only way to avoid that currently is if they can find another job with an eligible social care employer within 60 days. As migrant workers, they are not eligible for any kind of support if they are dismissed. Many employers are well aware of the fear and vulnerability that these workers experience and do not hesitate to use threats to secure their compliance. The sponsorship relationship with the employer is particularly harmful in the social care sector. As many Members will know, the care sector is one of the most precarious sectors in the UK. Firms regularly go under or lose their council contracts. The consequence is that staff find themselves without work and in financial hardship. For migrant care workers, the situation is even worse. Workers are fearful of raising concerns about employment practices, because they know that the same employers can remove their visa sponsorship. Unscrupulous employers can use the threat of removal to a care worker’s home country to victimise migrant workers who whistleblow or complain about their treatment. Workers do not only risk deportation by speaking up or challenging an employer. Many face total financial ruin in their home country, because they have sold all that they have to come here, and illegal recruitment fees demanded by predatory recruitment agencies are rife in the sector. According to the Work Rights Centre, one in three people on the health and care worker visa said that they had to pay a large recruitment fee to secure their sponsorship. The value of fees averaged £11,000. The latest report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority indicates that the care sector is the most reported sector for labour exploitation, making up 60% of all reports. The most common vulnerability to exploitation indicated by potential victims of forced labour is being tied to a visa under the existing sponsorship system. The Care Quality Commission has noted that workers are being exploited through the immigration system. Research last year by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre found that the current visa system creates hyper-insecurity, which increases workers’ vulnerability to exploitation. Workers routinely suffer low wages, high recruitment fees, inappropriate salary deductions and the threat of deportation. One care worker, who wishes to remain nameless, said: “We are not treated with dignity at all. Last month I was paid just £1,300 with no explanation as to why my wages had been reduced. Most carers are scared to take their leave for fear of losing shifts and when you get sick, the company deducts money from your salary”. One of my constituents in Poole, Nicola, explained that many sponsors have failed to meet their promises of providing adequate hours, which leaves workers in precarious situations. This not only undermines their rights, but often subjects them to poor working conditions and substandard housing. Some of the stories these workers tell are truly heartbreaking and highlight clear violations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For example, many migrant healthcare workers are expected to sign contracts containing draconian clauses which often include a requirement to pay back recruitment and training costs if they leave their posts within a few years. Workers have effectively been blackmailed into staying because their employers have threatened them with a large debt should they leave. Migrant care staff have also been invoiced for administration costs. One employer billed staff £65 an hour for meeting and greeting a new employee at the airport when they arrived in the UK. Another worrying trend is workers being charged fees that the Home Office explicitly forbid employers to pass on. These include the immigration skills charge that the Government require employers to pay when they agree to sponsor a worker from overseas. Government interventions to address these issues have failed thus far. In 2023, the then Government announced that care providers could only sponsor migrant workers if they were undertaking activities regulated by the CQC, but this failed to recognise that many registered companies were already exploiting their workers. In 2024, a rematching programme to help workers find another sponsored role when things went wrong was symbolic of acting after the problem had arisen, rather than seeking to change the structure of the system. Although welcome, stricter licensing requirements and greater sanctions do not address the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the employee sponsorship system. That is why I hope the Government will agree to a review of immigration policies that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers to exploitation and modern slavery. Vital to that is a re-examination of the visa sponsorship relationship with the employer in the social care sector, moving towards a sector-wide sponsorship scheme run by an independent body with a health and social care focus. That would enable overseas staff to leave bad employers and find work with better ones. Sector-wide sponsorship would also mean that workers and employers did not incur new costs every time a worker moved jobs. That would alleviate the pressure on the worker and reduce the impetus from some employers to enforce repayment clauses. Any visa scheme reform will stand or fall on whether it enables overseas workers to live their lives free of exploitation. This requires a fundamental shift in our immigration rules, so that the hostile environment is replaced with a rights-based framework and migrant workers are treated with dignity and respect.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling situations faced by migrant labour in the social care system, as highlighted by UNISON, emphasise the need for urgent structural reform of the system, to create a national care service that resolves workforce insecurity, alongside the many other problems arising from our social care crisis?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for urgent social care reform—and to bring it back into public ownership—is vital, and I will continue to press the Government on this.

I can see that the hon. Member is on his last paragraph. I apologise to him, and to you, Dr Huq—I am chairing a meeting next door, so I will have to leave. I intervene because he mentioned companies going out of business. In my constituency, when Southern Cross went out of business, a range of Filipino workers were left bereft, isolated, and with no income, and had to return home because of the visa situation. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which is coming before the House, proposes a fair pay agreement in the social care sector—which will be the first element of the reintroduction of sectoral collective pay bargaining—and proposes a fair work agency. That agency could take on the role of monitoring this sector and administer an overall sectoral visa process that could be fairer and regulated.

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. We need to consider how to address this problem in a practical way, and that might be one option. Introducing a common certificate of sponsorship is not only the right thing to do; it is absolutely crucial to raising standards in the care sector. Overseas workers play a vital role in keeping the sector running. They deserve better protections and treatment, and I hope that the Government will therefore see the merit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship.

Order. I remind hon. Members to stand. We will then work out how much time each Member gets.

16:41:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate. Two sets of people are being abused and exploited. The first set are workers in the care sector. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about the extent of abuse in the sector, and I have seen it myself in my employment law practice. However, I have also always been aware that there was a need for more advice in the sector than we could ever provide, for exactly the reason that he raised: people are too scared to come forward. The other set of people for whom this situation is deeply unjust are my constituents who receive care, who are spending their life savings on care, and who would be absolutely horrified to discover the circumstances in which many of the people who give that care are living. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has talked about this as a massive growth area of concern—I have spoken to the Minister about that previously, in this exact room, so I will not go into precisely the same points again. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority could potentially have a licensing scheme for care workers but, bluntly, its licensing schemes in other sectors do not seem to be eliminating abuse, so a certificate of common sponsorship is the way to get better rights and behaviours within the sector. At the moment, some councils are putting out tenders for care at payment rates of around £17 an hour. Care representative organisations tell me that the actual cost of providing care with staff paid in a legally compliant way is £22 an hour. That does not include any management costs whatsoever; it is just the cost of the member of staff being provided. We have, at minimum, a £5 an hour gap between legally compliant care workers and what local councils are offering, although the gap is more than that because companies will, of course, want to make some degree of profit—that is not, per se, illegitimate—and will naturally need to charge for some management costs. A gap that big is enriching non-compliant employers in the sector. Compliant employers are withdrawing from the market because they cannot manage to compete, or provide services, for the amounts of money available. There is an urgent need for a wider reform of the care sector, and pay within the sector. We are, of course, all looking forward to sectoral bargaining, to better protect workers and make it clearer to people what their rights are. However, unless workers have the capacity to enforce those rights, and unless they can move between employers as the rest of us can, they will continue to be exploited. We already have a significant problem in the sector. The problem is getting worse and will continue to get worse but this is, I hope, one of a number of measures that could really improve working conditions for people in this country.

We said five minutes each.

16:45:00

I am delighted to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. Having worked with him on the issue, I know we share a commitment to securing a fair solution for the workers affected by these rules. As the hon. Member outlined, the situation for people on health and care worker visas is uniquely difficult. The way that visa works puts employees into an incredibly and intolerably vulnerable position. If they lose their job, they lose their right to live and work in the UK, unless they find an eligible alternative employer within 60 days. A survey conducted by the Work Rights Centre found that only 5% of those who tried were successful within that timeframe. The situation can be even more difficult when, as Unison reports, employers withhold references for employees trying to change jobs. We can see it is really difficult for those workers to change employers. What does that mean? It means that employers hold significant power over their employees’ right to live and work here. Their lives are effectively under the control of the employers. That can be disastrous, as it has been found that many employers wield that power to make unfair demands on their workers. There have been reports of unreasonable demands made under the either implicit or sometimes explicit threat of revoking sponsorship. Employers do not have the right to deport people, yet that is what they are threatening to do. The Royal College of Nursing told us about a member who was asked to work on days she was not contracted to, tried to refuse and was told in reply by the employer, “We sponsor you.” That was a clear threat intended to intimidate her into compliance with work outside the contract. That is echoed by a domiciliary care worker from India who told Unison that every conversation they had with managers felt threatening and often ended with the word “visa”. The RCN has also reported threatening tactics being used to get employees to sign new more restrictive contracts, including—shockingly—being given just 30 minutes to sign before having their sponsorship revoked. Care worker Divya told Citizens Advice that she had not been paid in two months, while her British colleagues had been paid as normal. She was falling behind on bills. Having contacted her employer once about it, she was understandably scared to follow up, in fear she would be dismissed. She said: “I feel like we’re being treated as slaves.” There are other horrific examples, such as being given unsuitable and overpriced housing, or finding out that they do not even have the work that was promised when they arrived. Citizens Advice reports that a quarter of the migrant care workers it spoke to were given no work when they arrived in the UK. One in eight contracts were changed on arrival. It is blatantly clear that that is completely unacceptable. The Government have acknowledged the harm of those rogue employers, and have taken action around increasing sanctions for the breach of rules. However, as the hon. Member for Poole pointed out, those measures do not do enough to address the toxic power imbalance that arises when so much of an employee’s life is in the hands of a single employer. In short, they do not prevent this injustice. That is the crux of the issue and must be addressed. A certificate of common sponsorship would change that. It would mean that an employee’s sponsorship would not be chained to a single employer and it would break that exclusive link that is so often exploited. I strongly urge the Government to consider that as a solution. We have already had helpful suggestions for how it might work. Then we can empower migrant care workers to demand the fair conditions they rightly deserve.

16:49:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this crucial debate. Migrant workers are vital to the UK’s economy and society. They make up over a fifth of our workforce and support essential industries such as hospitality and social care. Just last week, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, the Southeast and East Asian Women’s Association and the Refugee Workers Cultural Association. They voiced serious concerns about the current visa rules that tie many migrant workers to a single employer, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. The existing legislation not only creates grey areas that allow employers to pay unliveable wages, deny sick pay and encourage abuse in the workplace, but it also strips employees of the agency to challenge those conditions. Many are trapped in a vicious cycle; they are scared to speak out due to fear of arrest, immigration detention or deportation, with no means to move to a safer employer. I fully support our Government’s commitment to reducing visa and immigration abuse, and empowering workers to report exploitation safely plays a crucial role in that. The introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship would enable migrant workers to change employers freely without facing the burden of additional immigration fees, the risk of being unemployed within the 60-day period or jeopardising their visa status. That would empower workers, increase accountability and raise standards for migrant workers, as employers would risk losing their workforce if they failed to treat workers fairly. Such measures will redress the power imbalance between workers and sponsors, giving workers the flexibility to escape exploitative situations and access their rights without fear. What conversations have Home Office officials had with those at the Department for Work and Pensions on the effects of data sharing and protections against employers using workers’ insecure immigration status to threaten and silence them in exploitative situations? The UK’s reliance on migrant workers cannot be overstated and all workers’ contributions must be valued and protected.

16:52:00

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for setting the scene so very well. The No. 1 reason why I am here is to support him, and the No. 2 reason is that I want to consider the benefits of the legislative change that he has proposed. Through the Minister, we will see whether that legislative change can be achieved. If we can do that, we can move this forward. Many firms in my constituency of Strangford have seasonal workers and must complete much paperwork. They go through various loopholes to secure their workers when they simply cannot source labour at home. There is a very clear purpose to that, which can be beneficial for us all. Firms cannot apply for these certificates annually in advance and rather have to wait three months, which is difficult logistically; I believe that an extension to the certificate of sponsorship could and should be considered. I look forward wishfully to the Minister’s consideration of what the hon. Gentleman has asked for, and I think this has been a very positive debate. Seasonal workers are needed quickly, and there should be an easier and more streamlined way for them to access sponsorship, to be gainfully employed and to be able to move through employment. That is why I supported the hon. Member in his call for reform of the tier 2 visa system and the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship. That is needed greatly within my constituency of Strangford and other rural constituencies. We need seasonal help and an easier and more cost-effective system to navigate. For many, it is bureaucratic—red taped—and we must ensure that that is not the case. The proposed change would allow migrant healthcare workers, for example, to switch employers within the sector without putting their visa status at risk. That would provide greater job security and better protection from exploitation, which all Members who have spoken have referred to. I am sure that the Minister truly desires that, and I await with great interest the Minister’s comments on how we can improve and streamline this process for even more people. I also look forward to the contributions of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). The fact is that these people are not coming to claim benefits but to work. Sometimes we should focus on the clear and positive contributions that they can make, often in industries where we cannot find and supply our own workers. I know a number of agrifood businesses that spend a great deal of their resources on filling out the applications. To be clear, I believe in the visa system—I understand it, I know why it is there and I support it as it is—but I also believe in checks and balances. There should be the ability to offer protection to workers in sectors that are crying out for help. That is why I am happy to support the hon. Member for Poole. It would be a simple and direct change, and one that could make all the difference. I highlight the fact, and make a plea to the Minister, that we still have to get the fishing crew visa situation sorted out. That, too, must be done. Specifically, I have a plea for the Minister. Over the years, in all my time here—I have been 14 years here as an MP—I have supported our visa system, which has worked. Unfortunately, the previous Government—I am not being disrespectful, just honest—put the threshold up to such a level that those who applied for visas, and the fishing boats who would employ those people, were unable to meet it. If the Minister is happy to do this, and I hope she will be, will she would meet me and some of the fishing organisations to discuss how we can better have a threshold that the fishing boat owners can meet and that gives a living and good wage to the people who come across? The Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation is keen to find a way forward. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the fishing sector and me to discuss such matters? To close, I know that the Minister has a desire to facilitate those who wish to come to work and to add to our economy and community—they do so, and they are positive in their contribution. I believe that this suggestion is one that could safely be taken up to allow sponsors and indeed workers a cost-effective and streamlined approach.

16:57:00

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing a debate on this issue. We both attended Unison’s lobby of Parliament last year, and met migrant health and social care workers on tier 2 visas. Some of the employment practices they had been subjected to were appalling. I completely understand their push for a certificate of common sponsorship. As highlighted by other Members, existing rules that tie a worker to a single employer create a relationship of dependency and a highly unequal power dynamic. Many health and social care workers on sponsorship visas are afraid to express concerns about their employment and living conditions for fear of losing their employer’s sponsorship and being returned to their home country. Often, such workers are in a financially precarious situation, which increases their dependency. Some have been charged by their employer for their job induction, travel or training costs; some have their families with them, too, and in some cases workers receive a salary below the minimum wage to make up the cost of their flights or their training. A concern repeatedly raised with me by healthcare workers on sponsorship visas in my constituency relates to shift patterns and hours. One constituent described starting work at 5 am and returning home at 10 pm, only to have worked for less than five hours due to the nature of his shifts, which he found financially and emotionally draining. Women might be sitting all day at bus stops and on benches in Cornish villages between their shifts, because their shift pattern has been so difficult to accommodate. Another constituent described employers threatening their staff about taking days off, and the expectation that migrant workers would always have to work bank holidays such as Christmas day. Unison has reported workers doing 19-hour shifts with no breaks, and the council in my area has revoked contracts with some providers for those reasons. Even in circumstances where workers are not facing poor employment or living conditions, care is still one of the most precarious sectors in the UK, including in Cornwall, where firms regularly go under or have their licences revoked. Healthcare workers who came to the UK on sponsorship visas then only have 60 days to find another job with an eligible social care employer, or they have to leave the country. That short timescale creates stress, uncertainty and financial hardship, which one of my constituents experienced when their sponsoring company’s licence was revoked. Some workers in my constituency have gone on to work for the NHS, but having the visas transferred has been incredibly difficult and stressful, even with such a big employer. A certificate of common sponsorship that is sector-wide, perhaps including health and social care and the NHS, rather than being linked to a single employer, would go a long way to addressing the issues we have all mentioned. It would prevent employers using the threat to withdraw sponsorship as a means of keeping migrant workers in poor living and working conditions, and it would improve job security and financial stability for those workers. That would help retain the desperately needed skilled professionals in the care sector.

17:00:00

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this debate and for laying out some of the problems with the current system very clearly. The Liberal Democrats are clear in our commitment to reforming the UK’s work visa system. We believe in creating a system that supports our country and economy while ensuring that everyone is treated with dignity and respect. The system should be fairer and more humane, and it should allow us to attract and retain the workers we need. A critical problem with the current system is the exploitation of migrant workers, who are often trapped in vulnerable working conditions that are particularly prevalent in the social care sector. The Liberal Democrats have a comprehensive plan to address that exploitation. We would establish a single enforcement body to combat modern slavery and worker exploitation, a measure the previous Government long promised, but failed to deliver. The body would ensure that all workers, regardless of their terms of employment, are protected from abuse and are treated fairly. Undoubtedly, the problem has been exacerbated by policies such as the ban on bringing dependants for people who come here on health and care worker visas. This is a cruel measure placed on those working to save lives, and it should be reversed.

I was slightly surprised by what the hon. Lady just said. Can she just repeat, so I understand correctly, that the Liberal Democrat policy is to reinstate the ability for people coming on the health and social care visa to bring dependants, knowing that that on average each person on that visa brought more than one dependant and the ratio was more than 1:1 throughout its operation?

It is a delight to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on such an important issue. We would not continue with the current visa structure and I will go on to explain what we would do. We believe, as a number of people do, that the system put in place by the previous Government is cruel. It is cruel for workers to allegedly be welcomed here, but not with their dependants, whether those are children or other dependants. We feel that we should be welcoming to families who want to play an important role in our society, such as by doing the job of a health and care worker—so yes, we would change the policy fundamentally: for a thriving, integrated society we should welcome families, not just workers, on these visas. We should not forget the extraordinary sacrifices that NHS nurses, doctors and care staff have made and continue to make. I see it for myself at Stepping Hill hospital in Hazel Grove, at our nursing homes and care homes, such as Cherry Tree House in Romiley, and with those domiciliary care workers who go into the homes of our most vulnerable neighbours to give them the care that they need. Those workers face immense pressure in the face of record waiting times and difficult, draining roles. The Liberal Democrats have consistently called for better support for those vital workers, including those who come from overseas. We would exempt NHS and care staff from the annual £1,000 immigration skills charge to recognise the invaluable contributions they bring. We should be valuing and cherishing our health and care workers. The Government should, as I have said, reverse the ban on visa holders bringing dependants with them. The policy needlessly separates families and discourages talented individuals from coming to the UK. If the previous Government had valued care workers as the skilled professionals that they are, they would not have needed to rely so heavily on overseas recruitment. That is why the Lib Dems propose the introduction of a carer’s minimum wage, which would make it easier to recruit and retain domestic workers in this vital sector. While the introduction of a certificate of common sponsorship may address some issues, we believe the root of the problem lies in our flawed visa system. We Lib Dems are clear: we can and we should have a fair and compassionate visa system that protects workers from overseas—but that cannot be achieved by tinkering around the edges. Ultimately, the UK needs a flexible, merit-based system for work visas, allowing the Government to work closely with each sector to ensure that those skilled workers will fill the skills gaps in the UK economy. That includes abandoning the arbitrary salary threshold for skilled worker visas dreamed up by the previous Government, which not only drives skilled workers away, but deepens existing workforce shortages, especially in the health and social care sectors. A merit-based system would recognise the unique needs of different industries and the vital contributions made by workers at all levels of the economy. For example, many roles in social care and the NHS are essential, but do not meet the current salary thresholds, leaving critical positions unfilled. By focusing on skills rather than arbitrary financial benchmarks, we can build a system that not only attracts talent, but encourages long-term retention, allowing workers to build lives and contribute meaningfully to our, and their, local communities. The Liberal Democrats share the goal of creating a visa system that prevents exploitation and fills workforce gaps, but that needs to be done through comprehensive reforms rather than simple, limited measures. A truly effective system must be compassionate, adaptable and designed to meet the needs of workers as well as of our economy. By focusing on systematic change, we can build a visa system that not only protects workers from exploitation, but ensures that critical workforce gaps are filled in a sustainable way.

17:06:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in that workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for. However, it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture, informed—but not led—by individual cases, and there is a wider question to address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration and successive Governments did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for decades, and remains so. That is relevant today, because the volumes of people on the health and social care visa are eye-watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester. Why is that? Because those jobs are tough, yes—but fundamentally because those jobs are underpaid. The Migration Advisory Committee says, “the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector…immigration could not solve these workforce issues alone.” This situation is economically self-defeating. There is no question that money the Government save in the short term by underpaying salaries in health and social care is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state. After five years, a person who has come here on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they will qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care, everything. All that costs money, far more money than those on these sorts of salaries will ever pay in tax and or than they will save the state with their artificially low wages. This cannot go on. As the hon. Members for Poole, for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have noted, those individuals are at risk of exploitation. That is a result of the poor pay and conditions across the sector, which have been allowed to endure through bringing in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming here. A certificate of common sponsorship will simply not solve this fundamental problem. The next related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes “misuse” of the visa as “a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”. All these issues raise massive concerns about the safety of patients and vulnerable people that the system is charged with caring for. It is awful that that system built up under a Conservative Government. The change of rules to limit dependants is insufficient to fix the whole problem, but was a substantial step in the right direction. Numbers in the most recent year fell by two thirds. The rules around the health and social care visa need to be tightened further, not loosened through a certificate of common sponsorship, and actually enforced. That is for the good of not only those healthcare workers themselves, but—as should be the primary concern of hon. Members here—for the good of their patients and of this country. Can the Minister please confirm that that reform is not under consideration? Can she please set out the discussions she is having with her Treasury and Health Department counterparts about the problem of underpaid jobs in health and social care? Can she please tell us how many migrants on care worker visas the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? Can she tell us, based on demographic level of income and number of dependants, what the Government expect this to cost?

17:10:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this very important debate and thank those who have spoken from the Back Benches, including my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer). Before I make any further comments, I assure the hon. Member for Strangford that I am very happy to meet him, as always, and indeed I will be visiting Scotland to talk about a number of the issues he has raised today. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), made very similar comments to her speech in the last debate that we were in. I think we can all agree that the immigration system needs to be fair, controlled and managed—much better managed that the chaos that we inherited. Many issues in the design of the health and care visa system contribute to the problems we see today. It is important that that is understood and acknowledged in this debate. I want to make a broad point: although I will hopefully address a number of the issues raised today, perhaps with some more positive input than may have been understood from some of the recent changes we have made, we understand that our net migration does need to come down from the record highs that we saw under the last Government. We have supported some of the rule changes brought in, including the stopping of dependants, which hon. Members will know. In that spirit, it is important to say that the Government recognise the vital contribution that care professionals from overseas make to our social care sector. We do share my hon. Friend the Member for Poole’s concerns about the treatment of international workers in the care sector. A number of the issues they face are also faced by others from within the UK who are working in the same sector, and I will highlight some of the work we are doing to enact reforms that will be in the interests of all in this very important sector for our country. My hon. Friend secured this debate in support of a proposal by Unison, as he outlined. I thank Unison for the considerable research and work it does in this area. I look forward to meeting the organisation to discuss not just these issues and its proposal, but its wider insights on issues facing workers. I hope that in this debate I can address some of the concerns raised and set out both what we are already doing, which I think goes quite a long way to addressing those concerns, and why addressing those concerns continues to be a high priority for this Government. Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care visa, which recognises the crucial contribution made by our international health and care workers. Those visas involve significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a quicker processing time and a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Since February 2020, UK employers have been able to use this route to recruit people from overseas to work as carers. Under the previous Government, the number of carers recruited grew beyond expectations, and it is for that reason as well that this Government have maintained the measures the previous Government introduced in the spring of 2024. The changes brought in by these new visas were stood up at pace by the previous Government to address what had become acute shortages in the adult social care sector. The issues the sector was facing had not been addressed and became a crisis—not unlike other workforce challenges—and they were then worsened by the covid-19 pandemic. The safeguards that should have been put in place when setting up these visas were not as effective as they could have been, and we have seen a range of abusive and exploitative practices in the sector. These have ranged from employers not having the work to fulfil workers’ contracts to abhorrent practices such as the housing issues that have been talked about, unfair shifts, pay and documents being withheld, and modern slavery. Hon. Members have also spoken about a lack of dignity, and a fear of taking holiday or sick leave or of speaking up when issues are faced. These are serious concerns and must be addressed. That is why, in the autumn, I met colleagues in the Department of Health. At that meeting, I discussed these issues and the progress of actions that have already been taken, looking at where we might see longer-term plans for the care sector. As has been referenced in today’s debate, the recently introduced Employment Rights Bill establishes a framework for fair pay agreements, through which an agreement for the adult social care sector can be negotiated and reached in partnership by employers, worker representatives and others. That is yet another example of the Government taking steps and actions to address the serious issues that have been outlined. The Minister for Care and I will be discussing these issues further with our counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, recognising local government’s stake in these issues, to understand how our Departments can come together and work more collaboratively. Although the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole focuses on health and care workers, it is worth mentioning that these issues seem to be particularly prevalent in lower-paying sectors such as care. In other areas of the health sector, the sponsorship system seems to be working well, with little need for significant Home Office intervention. However, I want to set out the steps we are taking to assist affected workers and the action that is already being implemented to tackle rogue employers. First, we have seen that jobs in the care sector often do not have enough hours to support the workers who have been recruited to come to the UK. It is in no one’s interest to grant care worker visas when there is no guaranteed care work for visa holders to come to; that does not support care needs or our constituents, and it can also leave visa holders unable to support themselves in the UK without access to public funds. UK Visas and Immigration is applying the genuine vacancy test with a clearer understanding of the care sector’s recruitment processes and practices, to make sure that sponsors prove that the job is required and that they have enough work to ensure that the person will be doing the proposed job and paid the required salary. That is vital, given that international recruits on those contracts do not have recourse to public funds. In the case of care workers who have come to this country in good faith to support these sectors and our constituents, but who have been left without a licensed sponsor, the Department for Health and Social Care has been working closely with the Home Office to design a process that will support those displaced care workers into new roles within the adult social care sector. Government officials, alongside 15 regional hubs in England made up of local authorities and directors of adult social services, are working together to support displaced workers into new roles. These regional partnerships have received £16 million this financial year to support them to prevent and respond to unethical practices in the sector. That includes providing funding support to help international recruits understand their rights. It also includes establishing operational processes with regional partnerships to support individuals to switch employers and remain working in the care sector in which they have been impacted when, for example, their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. We need to build on the progress that has already been made. It is important to note that, as part of that process, workers in adult social care roles receive a bespoke letter direct from the Home Office that notifies them if their sponsor’s licence has been revoked. It also gives them the directions and contacts, so that they can get in contact with their regional partnership hub if they want to secure new employment and new sponsorship. The letter is sent before the visa cancellation process starts and is designed to give workers in adult social care the time to access assistance. I am keen to see the process made quicker, and I will work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that that is the case and that the process is as effective as it can be. Where a worker believes that they are being exploited, but their sponsor is not yet subject to Home Office compliance action, the Government encourage them to come forward to regional hubs. Although the service is primarily for care workers whose employer’s sponsor licence has been revoked, we would expect support to be offered to other care workers who approach those hubs. I understand that some workers will be fearful, but I would encourage them and send them this message: they should come forward to report their experiences and secure help. For care workers specifically, the Home Office will waive priority service fees for applications supported by regional hubs. Those who have come to the UK legitimately to support our care sector should be given the best opportunity to do so and be treated with fairness and respect. That is why the Government are also stepping up action against rogue employers. The Government have made clear our intention to crack down on those employers who are abusing the immigration system, and we will prevent them from sponsoring overseas workers. That will benefit all workers across our points-based system. Let me turn specifically to the issue of employers passing on sponsorship costs to their workers, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members and is an outrageous practice. It has always been the intention that those benefiting from the recruitment of overseas workers should bear the costs of that sponsorship, and the Government believe that to be typical of most good employers. However, there are a small number of employers who have sought to load their sponsorship costs on to lower-paid international workers, and that must be stopped. I am pleased to confirm that the Home Office has implemented policy changes to address that practice by skilled worker sponsors, including in the health and care sector. Those sponsors are now prevented from passing on the costs of acquiring a sponsor licence or of assigning the certificate of sponsorship, as well as any administrative and legal costs associated with having and using a licence. It is our intention to go further and implement that more broadly across all sponsored work routes. As we set out before Christmas, the Government intend to go further and ban any employer who flouts employment laws from engaging with the immigration system. Visa and employment laws will be brought into closer alignment. Our sponsorship system will also reflect measures being driven and delivered by our Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. The Home Office will ensure that new protections set out in the Bill and the work of the flagship fair work agency are integrated into the sponsorship framework, strengthening the existing measures designed to prevent the mistreatment and exploitation of sponsored workers. Although a key objective of the sponsorship system is to ensure that international workers are protected against modern slavery and other labour abuses, the Government recognise that the requirement to be sponsored and the worker’s reliance on their sponsor can, in some circumstances, make it more difficult for sponsored workers to change their employer. Those who wish to seek alternative employment can do so if they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor and make a new application. They are able to do that at any time, and do not need to wait until their sponsor is no longer able to employ them. Individuals have different options, depending on their circumstances, and can seek advice from an accredited immigration adviser. If a sponsored care worker has lost their job because the sponsor’s licence has been revoked, they should, again, contact their regional support hub for assistance, as people who have been the victim of exploitation. The most important thing is that these individuals are supported to use the process and are able to make an application, which will enable them to regularise their stay. Anything short of that risks leaving them in a more vulnerable position, and we want to do everything we can to ensure that that is prevented. Finally, we are deeply concerned by reports of unethical practices relating to international recruits in the care sector. That is why we are taking decisive steps to address the issue, and why UK Visas and Immigration continues to investigate and take action alongside partners where evidence of abuse is found. It is engaging with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and other relevant agencies to hold employers to account, and working with the Department for Health and Social Care to support impacted workers. In conclusion, we continue to look at the best approaches for the immigration system, but it is important to note that the sponsorship compliance regime has exposed widespread abuse and stripped hundreds of rogue employers of their ability to recruit internationally. The system is therefore key to ensuring that future workers receive the pay and conditions promised when they applied for their visa. Although we recognise the issues raised today, there is also much more work to do urgently to improve the system. We are utterly committed to doing that and to working with colleagues across the House to make those changes and improvements a reality.

17:27:00

I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate, which was very positive. I also welcome the Minister’s contribution, and acknowledge both her understanding of the exploitation taking place in the sector today and her willingness to address that through existing and future measures. On regional support hubs, however, the evidence we have heard—that only 5% of people losing their sponsorship are able to gain another role within the 60-day period—is proof enough that the system is not yet working adequately. I acknowledge that there are efforts to be made, but that does not address the problem that migrant workers face. They are in vulnerable positions and precarious employment, and when that is threatened and taken away, it is very difficult to find another sponsor. I would like the Minister to take that on board further. Finally, my view is that strong trade unions are the key to exercising rights at work. Migrants should be represented in a union in their workplace. We also need a sympathetic legal underpinning that helps individuals and workers generally to exercise those rights. I am hoping that the Employment Rights Bill and other proposed legislation will do that. I am hopeful, ultimately, that the Government will see the economic and social benefit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.

17:29:00