Andy Burnham

It is extraordinary that the Opposition see migration issues as some kind of political football. We are talking about people’s lives, and whatever idea one has about policy and programmes, I think people’s lives deserve more seriousness. It is right that care workers are exempted from the new arrangements for ILR, but for the rest of the workforce, the retrospective nature of those new arrangements still seems unfair. People can come in legally and work legally, and then have their residency rights turned upside down. How can that be fair? May I ask the Home Secretary whether she has read the 276-page “lessons learned review” on the Windrush scandal, published by the Home Office in 2018? If she had read it, she would realise that she is in danger of finding herself in the same position as Home Secretaries who were in office at the time of that scandal. I have heard Members of this House talk about people coming here just to claim welfare. I have heard Members of this House say that people are not making a contribution. I have heard Members of this House say that we have to look at the rights of British nationals as opposed to migrants, as if many British nationals were not themselves immigrants. My parents were immigrants. My mother was a nurse. She was one of that generation who came to this country to build the NHS after the war, and it remains the case that immigrants play a very important role in our NHS. I say to the Home Secretary, and I say to the House, that we should always remember the contribution that immigrants made and continue to make to our society.

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. It took a year for the Home Secretary to build her reputation as tough on immigration, but what took a year to build she has just dismantled in 12 short minutes. I do not judge her by the actions we think she should take; I judge her by what she herself has previously said. She made announcements from the Government Dispatch Box on 20 November last year, and doubled down in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year. She repeatedly singled out social care workers as a particular problem. She said on 5 March that fraud in the social care sector was “rife”, with bogus sponsors. She said from the Government Dispatch Box that it was right that “more stringent” restrictions should be applied to social care workers. Now, she stands there and says the exact opposite. A Home Office document that the Home Secretary published on 5 March said that social care workers alone, because they work on low wages and have brought in many dependants, will cost the taxpayer £10 billion. Those are her figures about social care workers that she specifically chose to publish. She went on to say on 5 March that failing to implement her plans would be “an affront to the idea of fairness” in our society. That is exactly what she has done in the changes she has announced today. The Home Secretary now proposes to allow every single care worker and their dependants who arrived prior to May 2025—a number running into hundreds of thousands—to stay in this country beyond the expiry of their visa and, in the case of 75% of them, to stay permanently, even though she acknowledges that many of them arrived fraudulently. How can she justify allowing people who she acknowledges arrived in this country fraudulently to stay forever, at a cost that she herself has admitted is £10 billion? That is the cost of today’s U-turn: £10 billion. Outside of care workers, many of the so-called highly skilled workers who have arrived recently are not highly skilled at all. The Home Secretary did not mention this in her statement, but in her document she proposes to extend the soft terms on which those workers can stay until 2035, extending the previous sunset by five years. Her own document published today, which she did not refer to, forecasts that a staggering 1.9 million permanent settlement rights will be granted between now and 2030, and a freedom of information request has revealed where some of those people work. German Doner Kebab, a chain of kebab shops, sponsored 106 skilled worker visas. Khans middle eastern restaurant sponsored 28 high-skilled visas. A Domino’s Pizza franchise in South Yorkshire sponsored 78 high-skilled visas—Members get the picture. Just a year after getting ILR, someone can easily get full citizenship, and we know what that means: benefits, social housing, and free NHS treatment. [Interruption.] When the Home Secretary said in March that failing to implement her changes would be an affront, she was right, but now she has done exactly that. She also plans to give illegal immigrants who have arrived on small boats ILR and citizenship. We disagree with that. Why has the Home Secretary made those changes? It is because the Housing Secretary—who I notice has run out of the Chamber—the Energy Secretary and the Labour open-borders left oppose what she previously announced. The Home Secretary is no longer running the Government’s immigration policy—the Housing Secretary is—and her position is looking increasingly untenable. The Home Secretary has done no better with her announcements last year than Keir Starmer did with his welfare announcements, and we know what happened to him. We would go a lot further than the Home Secretary’s previous announcements, although they were a good start. If she wants to implement them in full, we will vote for them, because mass low-skilled migration must end. Those people who came here on a temporary visa and are working in low-skilled, low-wage jobs must leave when their temporary visa expires. We cannot allow them to stay forever, claiming benefits and social housing, yet that is what the proposals today will allow to happen. Ten billion pounds—that is the cost of today’s U-turn. To those who ask where we will find the workers, I say there are 9 million economically inactive adults in this country. Thanks to this Labour Government’s high-tax, high-regulation policies, there are now a million young people not in education, employment or training. If the Government had the courage to toughen up the welfare system, we would get some of those people into work, instead of relying on mass low-skill migration. If the Home Secretary wants to face down her nemesis, the Communities Secretary, and implement her own plans, we will vote for them. However, if she capitulates to the open borders left, her credibility as Home Secretary will not recover.

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I proposed an amendment to our recent report on earned settlement that included a plea to only make changes to indefinite leave to remain for those not already embarked on the pathway to settlement. While my amendment was defeated, only three Labour MPs on the Committee voted against it, with four other Labour colleagues voting with me or abstaining. In the statement, which I applaud and welcome, the Home Secretary rightly lauds the UK’s reputation for playing fairly, so will she join the Liberal Democrats in agreeing not to make any retrospective changes to the time required to achieve indefinite leave to remain for all those already on pathways to settlement, not only care workers—or do other contributions not count?

Two brave Eastbourne families are fighting for improved regulation of supported accommodation, after their respective relatives were found dead in the accommodation that was meant to be supporting them. Will the Minister meet them, and me, to discuss how we can better protect vulnerable people in supported accommodation?

Summer was a difficult time for Nottinghamshire fire service; it battled with wildfires and a lot of heat-related incidents. The firemen and women had to wear protective equipment and clothing in which it was simply unbearable to work in that type of heat. I know that the Secretary of State has made some funding available for this, but will she work to ensure that by next summer, if we have the same hot weather and wildfires, brave firemen and women will have the clothing and protective equipment that they need to work in those conditions?

Following this summer’s wildfires, we saw that the devolution of fire policy was no barrier to mutual aid co-operation between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Can the Minister tell me how any additional air firefighting capability will be allocated fairly across the nations of the United Kingdom?

In a statement issued by the Department last month, we were told that this money, which has been spent on partisan political campaigning, can be recovered if it has been used improperly—but that is not the same as doing it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will investigate and recoup every penny of taxpayer money funnelled to those partisan groups, either directly or by instructing councils?

15. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding for local authorities in rural areas.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”, published alongside the Budget, says on page 77 that the consequence of the 4% hike in property income tax will be fewer rental properties and higher rents as landlords pass on those costs. Does the Minister think the OBR is wrong? If not, does he accept that rents will go up as a result of those measures?

In Liverpool Wavertree, research by Crisis and Zoopla shows just 3% of homes for private rent are affordable for people who claim local housing allowance. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the increase in tax on property income announced in the Budget could feed through into rents, making an increase in LHA more necessary than ever. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in other Departments on that issue, as well as on rent regulation linked to inflation and wages, to relieve the pressure on private renters and reduce the cost of increasing LHA?

16. What steps she is taking to support tenants in the private rented sector.

House prices in Mid Cheshire are nearly £20,000 higher than the regional average and have continued to rise over the last year. The Your First Home scheme will be a big help for my constituents, but it is also important that we increase the number of affordable homes being built. The National Housing Federation estimated that we could have delivered an additional 41,000 homes outside of London in the latest round of the social and affordable homes programme. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the funding available in the early years of the social and affordable homes programme?

I recently met constituents in Grayshott and Haslemere who face poor communication from managing agents, with little transparency on where the service charges and costs that they are forced to pay go. Meanwhile, Surrey and Hampshire are set to lose out under the Government’s funding review, leaving many of those same residents facing higher council tax bills. Will the Secretary of State finally tell us when the leasehold reform Bill will be published, and give a guarantee that any savings delivered through that reform will not simply be wiped out by the higher council tax bills caused by her Government’s funding decisions?

This year alone West Yorkshire trading standards has raided 20 premises in Keighley, seizing illegal and counterfeit goods, and yet residents watch those same dodgy shops reopen within days. Our local trading standards has received well over 3,000 intelligence reports about dodgy shops such as minimarts, vape shops, takeaways and barbers, with reports linked to money laundering, drug supplying, modern slavery and illegal working—and that is just within Keighley. Despite the Government’s rhetoric of wanting to take a tough stance on this issue, why was West Yorkshire trading standards not included in the latest round of funding to support local trading standards with law enforcement action against organised criminal activity? Will the Minister look to resolve this issue?

11. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of powers available to councils to stop the opening of vape and barber shops on high streets.

Dudley high street has enormous potential to thrive and prosper once again, yet years of inaction from the Conservative-led council has left too many empty shops and too many businesses struggling. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Labour Government are taking to revitalise the area and reverse the trend of empty shops dominating our high street?

Many communities, including those in my constituency, are concerned about the concentration of HMOs. There is a perception that local authorities do not have the powers to be able to tackle this. I want to be very clear that I am not against HMOs in principle; this is about how they are abused. I know the Government have carried out a consultation, but do they feel that local authorities are able to strike the right balance between meeting housing needs and maintaining community cohesion?

I thank the Minister for his answer. Residents in Wednesbury and Tipton are absolutely sick of family homes being turned into HMOs and—now that that is getting more difficult—into supported exempt accommodation, too. I have campaigned for more controls on HMOs since the day I was elected, but supported exempt accommodation is essentially unregulated. When will this Government bring in further controls on supported exempt accommodation?

7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the Pride in Place programme on Wales.

I have over half a dozen park home estates in my constituency, so I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government are reviewing whether to get rid of the 10% charge that owners have to pay if they sell their park home. No other property owner has to pay such a charge, and my constituents feel very strongly that this is iniquitous. May I make a submission to the review on their behalf? They would be very grateful if the Minister were to abolish the charge.

Tudor Rose Park in Peacehaven is a park home with 107 residents. Many are elderly and vulnerable; all have suffered years of unfair charges, crumbling buildings and poor maintenance. Just this morning at my surgery, two residents told me of the “despair, exploitation and intimidation” that many feel at the hands of park owners. I know that the Minister is looking at this closely, so can he tell me when the Government will act and introduce changes that will end the wild west of park homes and protect my constituents in Tudor Rose Park?

6. If her Department will take steps to improve protections for renters and owners of park homes.

5. What assessment she has made of trends in the level of new housing in Chesterfield.

I thank the Minister for the intervention that his Department has made with the rapid best-value assessment at Ashfield district council, in response to my representations over the past two months. These are extremely serious allegations, and my constituents in Hucknall have been let down badly by the council. Will the Minister confirm that urgent action is being taken? Can he say what more can be done to prevent further inappropriate decisions, especially on planning? Does he agree that the severity of the allegations warrants a referral to the police for an independent investigation?

Kinver Business Solutions has secured more than £1 million in project management fees from Ashfield district council. It now turns out that one of the project managers is actually the son of the chief executive of Ashfield district council. I thank the Department for arranging an appointment this week, but does the Minister agree that it is time to send the commissioners in to Ashfield district council? There is not a minute to spare.

Despite concerns, Reform rushed through the appointment of Norfolk county council’s new CEO, Dennis Bacon. Thanks to Councillor Ben Weston, we now know that Mr Bacon hosted senior Reform councillors at his luxury B&B the day before job applications opened. Norfolk Reform has failed on three Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity and objectivity. Does my hon. Friend agree that a slap-up meal should not get someone a £215,000 job?