UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Robin Walker

  • Robin Walker – 2022 Speech on Antisemitism at Bristol University

    Robin Walker – 2022 Speech on Antisemitism at Bristol University

    The speech made by Robin Walker, the Minister for School Standards, in response to a speech made by Christian Wakeford, in the House of Commons on 6 January 2022.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on securing this debate on antisemitism at the University of Bristol. I echo his comment that it is profoundly troubling that we should have to have this debate at all. It feels especially poignant given that Holocaust Memorial Day is just a few weeks away. I should point out that I am responding to the debate on behalf of the Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who is isolating pending the outcome of a PCR test. I wish her well with that.

    I would like to begin by stating that there is no place for antisemitism in our society. The Government are clear that racism and religious hatred of any kind should not be tolerated. Universities and other higher education providers should be at the forefront of tackling antisemitism, and must make sure that higher education is a genuinely fulfilling and welcoming experience for everyone. Colleagues may be aware that in November, within just a few weeks of his appointment, the Secretary of State for Education visited Auschwitz, which demonstrated his resolve to learn the terrible lessons of the holocaust and to eradicate antisemitism from our education system. During his visit, he warned that if universities failed to consider the views of Jewish students, the risk was “obvious”, adding that antisemitism is not simply a historic debate; it is a present danger and a scourge that exists, sadly, on our campuses. We must do more to stamp out antisemitism and ensure that Jewish students and staff feel welcome on all our campuses.

    Eliminating antisemitism from our society, including our world-leading university sector, is one of our key priorities. We have been clear that we expect providers to take a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism in all its forms. The Government have taken decisive and long-standing action to tackle antisemitism in higher education. The working definition of antisemitism developed by the IHRA is one important tool for identifying and tackling antisemitism. Adopting it sends a strong signal that higher education providers take the issue seriously.

    Christian Wakeford

    Getting from where we were a couple of years ago to where we are now with regard to the number of institutions that have adopted IHRA is something we should be proud of. However, adopting IHRA is clearly just a badge. What can the Minister and the Department do to make sure that adoption is only part of the journey and that the definition is truly enforced as well?

    Mr Walker

    My hon. Friend pre-empts some of the comments I am about to make. I absolutely recognise that it is only a step on the journey and not the destination itself.

    In October 2020, the previous Secretary of State wrote to all higher education providers, urging them to adopt the IHRA definition. He wrote again in May 2021, emphasising the importance of adopting the definition in the light of increased antisemitic incidences following the conflict in the middle east.

    To support that, in the previous Secretary of State’s strategic guidance letter to the Office for Students last year, he specifically emphasised the importance of work on the IHRA definition and asked the Office for Students to undertake a package of work aiming to increase adoption levels across the sector. Last month, in response, the OfS published a list of providers that have adopted the definition along with case studies of where it is being used most effectively. I am pleased to see the progress made—my hon. Friend commented on this—with a marked increase in the number of providers adopting the definition from about 30 to more than 200, including the vast majority of universities.

    Although that progress has been made, we are acutely aware that adoption of the definition is just a first step towards eradicating antisemitism in higher education. The Community Security Trust recently published statistics indicating that there is still much work to do. Some worrying examples were cited that demonstrate how much more needs to be done.

    Dr Offord

    I am grateful that the Minister raised the CST and the figures that it published, which I have in front of me. He will be aware that of the about 8,500 Jewish students at UK universities, about one in five suffers antisemitic abuse.

    Mr Walker

    Which is clearly far too many. I was going to say that while I welcome the fact that the CST found that the vast majority of Jewish students have a strongly positive experience at university, it is deeply troubling to hear that there were about 111 antisemitic incidents in the sector in the 2020-21 academic year. To see a number of high-profile universities, including Bristol, named by the CST as providers with high numbers of incidents shows that there is still much more work to do—even at providers that have embraced the IHRA definition.

    Those worrying statistics follow the CST report on campus antisemitism between 2018 and 2020 that named six cities with five or more recorded incidents throughout the period, of which Bristol was one. It is even more concerning that many of the institutions named by the CST had already adopted the IHRA definition. I take this opportunity to echo the comments made in the debate and wholeheartedly express my support and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education for the work done by the CST. I recognise how it provides invaluable assistance to the UK Jewish community, including in schools, for which I am responsible, and I know that the Minister for Higher and Further Education and the Secretary of State are looking forward to welcoming the CST to the summit that they are leading later this month focused on tackling antisemitism in universities.

    We know from the statistics mentioned that while our work to increase adoption of the IHRA definition is important, it is not enough on its own. That is why the Government have provided, via the Office for Students, £4.7 million to support 119 projects with a particular focus on harassment and hate crime, including 11 projects targeted at tackling religion-based hate crime. Those projects concluded in spring 2020, and an independent evaluation showed that they led to increased collaboration between the sector and external partners such as charities or community organisations aiming to tackle religious hatred.

    In relation to steps that the OfS is taking on tackling antisemitism, as well as publishing on 10 November the list of providers that have adopted the IHRA definition, it has published supportive guidance for providers. In 2019, Universities UK published a briefing note on tackling antisemitism, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has urged all providers to engage seriously. The OfS is also undertaking an impact evaluation on its statement of expectations on harassment and hate crime, which was published in April 2021. That work will take place from January to August. As part of the OfS’s next steps, it will consider options for connecting the statement of expectations to its conditions for registration.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South raised the important question of how the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will apply in this context. The Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties and introduce clear consequences for where these duties are breached. Recent incidents such as those at the London School of Economics show the importance of the work in this area. I am absolutely clear that the Bill does not give a green light to antisemitism and holocaust denial. In particular, any attempt to deny the scale or occurrence of the holocaust is morally reprehensible and has no basis in fact. I am categorical that nothing in the Bill in any way encourages higher education providers or student unions to invite antisemites, including holocaust deniers, to speak on campus. The strengthened protections for freedom of speech are likely to support students from minority backgrounds, who, on a number of occasions, have had their speech shut down by others.

    The Bill provides for the appointment of a director for freedom of speech and academic freedom to the OfS board, with responsibility for overseeing its free speech functions, including championing freedom of speech and recommending redress via a new complaints scheme where speech is unlawfully restricted. This will place an appropriate focus on these fundamental rights.

    The Bill will protect the freedom of speech of Jewish students, staff and visiting speakers, which has at times been under threat, as we saw recently with incidents in our universities. It will stop universities using security costs as a spurious attempt to cancel mainstream speakers, such as has been the case when a society attempted to invite the Israeli ambassador, and it will mean that universities and student unions have to take genuine action against those who use violence or threats of violence to shut down speech, including that of Jewish students.

    In addition to the Bill, there needs to be cultural change, and we welcome initiatives by universities, academics and students to drive this, but as we have seen historically on issues such as gender equality, race discrimination and human rights, cultural change occurs more readily when backed by appropriate legislation.

    Christian Wakeford

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mr Walker

    I will give way, but I am happy to commit to the meeting my hon. Friend has asked for, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has offered to hold.

    Christian Wakeford

    I appreciate the offer of a meeting. Obviously, I will raise this in the meeting, but I will also raise it during this debate. Cultural change can only happen with open dialogue, training and transparency, so will the Minister commit to writing to the university to request details of the provider and what is actually being covered, as well as the assurance that this is meaningful training about how to tackle antisemitism?

    Mr Walker

    I think I can probably make that commitment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education, but I will certainly make sure that the Department follows up on it.

    I did want to address specifically the case of Professor Miller at the University of Bristol. Universities are of course independent and autonomous organisations. Accordingly, the Government have not intervened directly in this case. I also understand that there are ongoing legal proceedings in relation to the case, so for that reason I cannot address all the specifics that my hon. Friend raised. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education has said publicly on a number of occasions that the views of Professor Miller, in particular his accusations against Jewish students, are ill-founded and wholly reprehensible, and the Government wholeheartedly reject them.

    My right hon. Friend met representatives of the University of Bristol in May 2021 not to intervene in its investigation, but to seek their reassurance that the university recognises its obligations to protect Jewish students from harassment and hate crime, and to support them if they feel in any way threatened. She also wrote to the university twice to ensure that it was supporting Jewish students and staff who may have felt threatened at the time. We of course welcome the university completing a full investigation into the conduct of Professor Miller, but we expect that future instances there or elsewhere should be dealt with in a much swifter and more decisive manner.

    Tackling antisemitism is a priority for me, for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education and for the Government. We are keen to hear from Jewish groups about what more can be done to make Jewish students and staff feel safe on campus. The Secretary of State and Ministers will continue to work closely with Lord Mann, the independent adviser to the Government on antisemitism, and also meet regularly with Jewish stakeholder groups.

    As I mentioned earlier, later this month, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Higher and Further Education will be leading a summit specifically focused on tackling antisemitism in higher education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he intends to bring together key stakeholders from the sector to examine what more can be done to make Jewish students and staff feel safe on campus. This event will encourage discussion about what more can be done to eradicate the scourge that is antisemitism, and to agree concrete actions that providers can take to keep their Jewish students safe from it.

    My hon. Friend asked specifically about antisemitism training at the University of Bristol. As I say, I am happy to make the commitment that the Department will write to the university again. I urge the university and other providers truly to engage with the communities that suffer from these abhorrent behaviours and to work with them to increase awareness of the impact of antisemitism and how it can be tackled most effectively.

    My ministerial colleagues have worked closely with the Union of Jewish Students, which provides training on how to recognise and tackle antisemitism. I urge the University of Bristol to consider how it can learn more from those who are directly affected, and I know the UJS would be keen to support such work. My hon. Friend asked whether the UJS can be part of a meeting with him, the CST and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education; as I mentioned earlier, she is happy to commit to that.

    Our HE sector has enormous capacity to change lives for the better. I know that universities are serious in their commitment to tackling antisemitism, but there remains work to be done, as this debate has demonstrated. For our part, we will continue to work across Government to ensure that racism and religious hatred of any kind are not tolerated anywhere, including in our world-leading universities.

  • Robin Walker – 2021 Comments on Pupil Absence

    Robin Walker – 2021 Comments on Pupil Absence

    The comments made by Robin Walker, the Schools Minister, on 26 November 2021.

    It has been fantastic to see how through a combination of data, proactivity and a focus on children’s wellbeing, a school like the London Academy has driven up attendance and reduced persistent absence. Every lesson that we can prevent a child from missing is another building block to their life chances, development and wellbeing.

    My department is channelling all its efforts to provide support and guidance to help schools, local authorities and multi-academy trusts take action to increase attendance, and I ask that everyone working with children does everything in their power to help break down any barriers to them attending school.

    I recognise that Covid is still with us and causing some unavoidable absence – but this is all the more reason that we must all take action to address every avoidable reason for a child not being in school.

  • Robin Walker – 2021 Statement on Education Staff Wellbeing

    Robin Walker – 2021 Statement on Education Staff Wellbeing

    The statement made by Robin Walker, the Minister for School Standards, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2021.

    We recognise the incredible efforts of schools and colleges to maintain the safety and wellbeing of staff, students and pupils and we are grateful to them for what they are doing.

    Supporting the wellbeing and mental health of staff is a crucial element of our commitment to help create a supportive culture in schools and colleges. We have worked in partnership with the education sector and mental health experts to inform and deliver the commitments announced in May 2020 to protect and promote staff mental health and wellbeing.

    I am today announcing a new £760,000 mental health support scheme for school leaders to be delivered by the charity Education Support from this autumn until March 2023. The programme will provide one-to-one counselling and peer support to around 2,000 school leaders, helping those at deputy head level and above with their mental wellbeing.

    It builds on the pilot involving over 350 school leaders which was launched in response to the challenges brought about by the pandemic. Eligible school leaders will be able to access the programme from today through the Education Support website.

    Along with this announcement, this week, we are launching the education staff wellbeing charter for schools to sign up to. The charter sets out commitments from the Government, Ofsted, schools and colleges to promote and protect the mental health of the education workforce.

    Through the charter, the Department pledges to work with the sector to drive down unnecessary workload, improve access to wellbeing resources, and champion flexible working, among a range of actions to support staff wellbeing. We are now encouraging all state funded schools and colleges to sign up to the charter to create a united approach to supporting staff wellbeing.

  • Robin Walker – 2020 Statement on Payments to the Victims of the Troubles

    Robin Walker – 2020 Statement on Payments to the Victims of the Troubles

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robin Walker, the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office, at the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    The Secretary of State has asked me to pass on his apologies for not being able to answer this urgent question in person, as he is currently in Northern Ireland engaging in discussion on these and other matters and was unable to return to the House in time for it. I hope that the House will not mind, therefore, if I answer on his behalf. He has written to the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the Victims’ Commissioner on this matter today.

    Last summer, the House agreed that in the continuing absence of an Executive, the Government should make regulations establishing a troubles victims payment scheme. There was cross-party support for establishing the scheme, which was intended to provide much needed acknowledgement and a measure of additional financial support to those most seriously injured during the troubles. We made regulations establishing a victims payment scheme in January and did so, yes, to fulfil our legal obligation under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, but also because we are committed to doing what we can to progress a scheme that has been too long delayed by political disagreements. Having spoken personally to a number of victims’ groups and the Victims’ Commissioner in recent weeks, I am very aware of how long many people have waited for an acknowledgement of the physical distress and emotional trauma caused by injuries to themselves or loved ones during the troubles.

    Much has been made in the media of the suggestion that funding is holding up the establishment of this scheme, but that is not the case. Funding is not preventing the Executive from being able to take the vital steps to unlock implementation; rather, the key step to unblocking the process is the designation of a Northern Ireland Executive Department to provide administrative support to the Victims’ Payments Board. I am afraid to say that despite this decision being the subject of discussion by Executive Ministers for some time and one on which the Secretary of State is currently engaging them in Northern Ireland, they have not yet designated a Department to lead on the implementation of this scheme. The Justice Minister is prepared to lead on the scheme, but Sinn Féin has been clear that it wants to reopen the criteria by which eligibility for the scheme will be determined. That is already set in legislation and provides a fair basis for helping those who suffered most throughout the troubles. It is therefore imperative that Sinn Féin, along with all the parties, enables the scheme to move forward, as the time for delay is gone.

    The Government take this matter very seriously, and we are extremely disappointed by the current delay. It is because of the high priority we place on this issue that the Secretary of State has written to and had meetings with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. ​We have been offering and providing all appropriate support to help progress the implementation of this scheme. I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that the UK Government are committed to seeing this matter progress; victims have waited too long for these payments. The Northern Ireland Executive committed to finding a way forward on this issue in 2014. The UK Government have provided that way forward, through the regulations made in January, following public consultation. The Executive must now set aside their political differences and deliver for victims.

  • Robin Walker – 2019 Statement on the General Affairs Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Commons on 25 April 2019.

    The UK and the EU have agreed an extension to Article 50, until 31 October 2019, which is legally binding in EU and international law. Until we leave the European Union, we remain committed to fulfilling our rights and obligations as a full Member State, and continue to act in good faith.​

    I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) in Luxembourg on 9 April 2019. A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2019/04/09/

    Multiannual Financial Framework 2021 – 2027

    The presidency presented a progress report outlining the latest developments on negotiations on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) – related sectorial proposals. The presidency also highlighted that common understandings have been reached with the European Parliament (EP) on ten sectorial files. Cohesion and Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) continued to be the central pillars of the next MFF. However, the Commission noted that the proposed cuts to Cohesion and CAP were unavoidable due to the loss of the UK’s contribution.

    The Cohesion fund aims to reduce economic and social disparities and to promote sustainable development. Ministers discussed how the Cohesion policy and CAP can best support EU priorities. Some member states criticised the proposed cuts and supported maintaining funding for transition regions (where GDP per capita falls between 75% and 90% of the EU average). Other member states advocated for a stronger link of funds to the EU’s core business, such as tackling climate change, rule of law and migration. There was general agreement that cohesion funding should be predictable, whilst allowing for a level of flexibility to manage unexpected events.

    Ministers agreed that the funding priorities should be modernisation of the agricultural industry and securing support for young farmers. Some member states proposed a set target for expenditure contributing to climate change goals, while incentivising farmers to meet the goals.

    Conclusions on the Reflection Paper “Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030”

    Ministers adopted conclusions on the EU’s implementation of the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs are targets in 17 priority areas agreed between the members of the UN in 2015, with the aim of making the world a more sustainable place to live. The Council agreed that the SDGs are a key aspect of the EU’s Strategic Agenda 2019-2024, making clear reference to “leave no one behind”.

    The Council’s conclusions recognised the importance of the SDGs for the EU, stated that the UN 2030 Agenda was an overarching priority for the EU and stressed that it was in the EU’s interest to play a leading role in its implementation, recognising that delivery of this agenda is necessarily a shared responsibility between all stakeholders.

    Values of the Union – Hungary /Article 7(1) TEU Reasoned Proposal

    The Commission provided an update on the most recent developments regarding EU values in Hungary. Ministers discussed values of the Union in relation to Hungary.

    Rule of Law in Poland / Article 7(1) TEU Reasoned Proposal

    The Commission provided an update on the rule of law cases in Poland before the European Court of Justice, and its most recent infraction notification against Poland’s disciplinary procedures for ordinary judges. The presidency stated that the Council would return to the issue.

  • Robin Walker – 2019 Statement on Temporary Transitional Migration Arrangements: UK and Switzerland

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Commons on 24 April 2019.

    The UK and Switzerland have reached an agreement on temporary transitional migration arrangements for workers in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. These would apply until December 2020.

    This agreement is further to the Swiss Government’s announcement in February 2019 that in a no-deal scenario they would create a specific quota of 3,500 work permits for 2019 for UK workers. As part of the transitional migration agreement, Switzerland has also agreed that UK nationals would not need to meet rules regarding skill level, national preference and economic interest which normally apply to third country nationals during the period covered by the agreement. The agreement also includes protections for frontier workers not covered by the UK-Swiss citizens’ rights agreement which would allow them to continue cross-border work until 31 December 2020.

    The UK has agreed to provide arrangements for Swiss nationals who wish to work in the UK which are at least as favourable as those offered to UK nationals in Switzerland. In the event of no deal, and following the ending of free movement, Swiss and EEA nationals arriving in the UK for the first time would be eligible for European temporary leave to remain. This would allow them to work in the UK for three years.

    This agreement will be subject to ratification processes in both states, and will be signed and published in due course. The UK and Switzerland will continue to work ​closely together on implementing the agreement and will discuss the arrangements which will apply from the end of 2020 in due course.

    Further information about the agreement can be found on gov.uk.

  • Robin Walker – 2019 Statement on UK Nationals in the EU

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Commons on 4 April 2019.

    Citizens have always been our priority in the negotiations for our departure from the EU. Today I am setting out further details on the steps that the Government are taking to protect UK nationals.

    Reciprocal arrangements for social security co-ordination, including reciprocal healthcare, in a no-deal scenario

    UK nationals who have chosen to build their lives in the EU and wish to remain there are concerned about their social security entitlements, including healthcare cover in the event of a no deal.

    In the Government’s December announcement on citizens’ rights, we highlighted that aspects of the social security co-ordination section of the withdrawal agreement, including reciprocal healthcare, require reciprocity from the EU or member states and cannot be protected unilaterally. We set out that we were exploring further options to protect these rights in a no-deal scenario and the Department for Health and Social Care proposed maintaining existing healthcare arrangements with EU member states and EFTA states until 31 December 2020 on 19 March; with the aim of minimising disruption to citizens’ healthcare provision.

    However, to fully protect UK nationals in the EU, the UK is seeking to protect the social security co-ordination rights of UK nationals in the EU, including reciprocal healthcare, by reaching reciprocal arrangements with the EU or member states to maintain existing rights for a transitional period until 31 December 2020, consistent with our guarantee of the healthcare rights of EU citizens living in the UK.

    Family reunification

    UK nationals are also concerned about their right to return from the EU with non-UK national family members after exit. Having listened to these concerns, I can confirm that UK nationals will be able to return to the UK with their existing close family members under current rules, until 29 March 2022. This means that where the relationship exists before exit or where a child was born overseas after this date, they will be able to apply to and qualify for the EU settlement scheme until 29 March 2022. After this date, such family members will be able to return to the UK by applying under the relevant UK immigration rules.

    UK nationals living in the EU who return to the UK after exit will be able to be joined by future spouses and partners, where the relationship was established after exit, and other dependent relatives until 31 December 2020 if they previously lived in the EU with that family member. From 2021, the UK immigration rules will apply to such family reunion. These arrangements will apply in both a deal and no-deal scenario, providing ​UK nationals in the EU with sufficient continuity after exit to allow families to plan with confidence, while also bringing family reunion rights for all UK nationals in the UK and abroad into alignment from 29 March 2022.

    Access to benefits and services

    The Government have already announced that UK nationals living in the EU will continue to receive benefits, including child benefit and disability benefit, where the recipient is exporting a UK benefit to their EU country of residence. UK nationals in the EU who are already in receipt of a UK benefit, including the state pension, will also continue to receive these benefits should they choose to return to the UK.

    UK nationals returning to live in the UK who meet the ordinary residence test will be able to use NHS services. This means that UK nationals who have returned to the UK permanently in a no-deal scenario would have access to NHS-funded healthcare on the same basis as UK nationals already living here.

    UK nationals considering returning to the UK and planning to make new applications for benefits and services should check eligibility requirements for the relevant benefits and services on gov.uk. The usual entitlement conditions, which exist for both resident and returning UK nationals, will apply and we expect most returning UK nationals will be able to satisfy the necessary eligibility requirements. Certain benefits and services, such as non-contributory benefits, include satisfying certain residence criteria and individual decision makers will carefully consider each application to ensure that UK nationals receive the benefits and services that they are entitled to.

    Access to higher education, further education 19+ and apprenticeship funding in the UK

    UK nationals living in the EEA or Switzerland on exit day, who wish to study in England, will continue to be eligible for home fee status and student support from student finance England, along with access to further education 19+ funding for courses and apprenticeships in England starting up to seven years from exit day in a no deal scenario. In a deal scenario, the seven-year transition period will commence at the end of the implementation period.

    The seven-year transition period will ensure that eligible UK nationals living in the EEA or Switzerland wishing to study in further education 19+, higher education, or undertake an apprenticeship in England, will be able to do so immediately on their return to the UK during this transition period.

    Further information

    The measures outlined above are without prejudice to the rights and privileges accorded, by virtue of the common travel area, to Irish and UK nationals when in each other’s state.

    The Government continue to pursue a ring-fenced agreement with the EU and has exchanged letters with the European Commission on the subject. The UK has also reached separate agreements with the EEA EFTA states and Switzerland, which will mean that in a no-deal scenario UK and EFTA nationals living in each other’s countries before exit day will be able to continue living their lives broadly as they do today.​

    We will continue to provide updates to UK nationals in the EU on gov.uk and through our network of embassies, consulates and high commissions.

    Let me reiterate that securing the negotiated withdrawal agreement is in the mutual interest of all our citizens. It is the most effective way for the Government to guarantee the rights of UK nationals in the EU and to provide certainty.

    I will be depositing the policy paper “Citizens’ Rights – UK nationals in the EU” in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Robin Walker – 2019 Statement on EEA and Swiss Nationals

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the House of Commons on 26 March 2019.

    Today the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for Work and Pensions are announcing that, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, there will be no immediate changes to entitlements to access public funds for EEA and Swiss nationals coming to live in the UK after free movement ends and before the new immigration system is introduced in 2021.

    “Public funds” is defined in immigration rules and includes a range of services and benefits that are provided by a number of Government Departments, local authorities and service providers. This announcement is pertinent to all spending and service Departments.

    On 28 January 2019 the Home Secretary set out the immigration provisions for EEA and Swiss nationals coming to the UK after EU exit in the event of a no deal. The provisions will enable the Government to end freedom of movement but recognise the need for transitional arrangements.​

    In the event of no deal EEA and Swiss nationals arriving after free movement ends and wishing to stay longer than three months would need to apply for temporary leave to remain which, if granted, would be valid for 36 months.

    Our announcement today provides details of the transitional arrangements for access to public funds for this group.

    These arrangements will provide certainty to individuals arriving in the UK following the ending of free movement, will minimise disruption, and will ensure that changes are made in a sensible and sustainable way over a period of time.

    It is important that, in a no-deal scenario, EEA and Swiss nationals who come to the UK after free movement ends know what their eligibility to access public funds will be. This will be on the same basis as for EEA and Swiss nationals now. They will continue to need to meet any eligibility criteria, for example demonstrating that they are exercising an EU qualifying right to reside, such as a worker or self-employed person. As now, those not exercising a qualifying right will not be able to access certain publicly funded services and benefits.

    When an individual’s 36 months temporary non-extendable leave expires, a person wishing to remain in the UK will need to apply and qualify for leave under the new immigration system that will be introduced from 2021 onwards. When individuals move into the new immigration system, or if they otherwise change immigration status, their access to public funds may change. The details on the entitlements that will apply in these circumstances will be subject to further consideration. This may mean that some benefits will cease and that entitlements to some services may end. However, the Government are considering their options and announcements will be made in due course.

    We are today publishing a paper entitled access to public funds for EEA and Swiss nationals arriving in the UK after EU exit in a no deal scenario, and I will be depositing copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  • Robin Walker – 2017 Speech After Release of EU Sectoral Papers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, in the House of Commons on 28 November 2017.

    This House passed a motion on 1 November asking that impact assessments arising from sectoral analyses be provided to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union. This Government take very seriously their parliamentary responsibilities, and have been clear that they would be providing information to the Committee.

    In the past three weeks, Departments have worked to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative. I am glad to be able to confirm that this information has been provided not only to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union but to the House of Lords EU Select Committee and, indeed, to the devolved Administrations. I can also, Mr Speaker, with your permission, inform the House that we have initiated discussions with the parliamentary authorities to make this information available to all colleagues through a reading room.

    We were clear from the start that we would respond to the motion, but also that the documents did not exist in the form requested. Indeed, I made it clear to the House during the debate on the day that

    “there has been some misunderstanding about what this sectoral analysis actually is. It is not a series of 58…impact assessments.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 887.]

    As I said, the sectoral analysis is a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. The House of Commons itself has recognised that, although Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, the Government also have an obligation to consider where it will be in the public interest for material to be published.

    Furthermore, it is important to recognise that, in some cases, there is commercially confidential information in the analysis and that, in many cases, the analysis was developed to underpin advice to Ministers on negotiation options in various scenarios. It is well understood, as has been the case under successive Administrations, that such advice to Ministers must remain private.​

    In the light of all that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made a statement on 7 November in which he explained that, given the documents did not exist in the form requested, it would take

    “some time to collate and bring together this information in a way that is accessible and informative to the Committee.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 1333.]

    He committed that the reports would be provided within three weeks. In providing the information to the Committee yesterday, we have met that commitment. Parliament has endorsed the responsibility of Ministers not to release information that would undermine our negotiating position. Contrary to what has been asserted in some places, the Committee did not give any firm assurances that what was passed to it would not subsequently be published in full. Where there are precedents for Government agreeing to pass information to Select Committees in confidence, these have been on the basis of assurances received before material is shared or a clear set of rules, such as those governing intelligence material.

    When he met the Secretary of State, the Chairman of the Select Committee did say that he was willing to enter into a dialogue—after the Select Committee had received documents from the Government. But that is not the same as an assurance that, if we provided confidential or sensitive material, it would not be published, and it is not in keeping with the usual practice of Committees on these sensitive issues. As such, the sectoral reports provided do not contain information that would undermine the UK’s hand in negotiations or material that is commercially or market sensitive. But the House should be in no doubt that this has been a very substantial undertaking. We have been as open as possible, subject to the overwhelming national interest of preserving our negotiating position. We have collated more than 800 pages of analysis for the Committees, less than a month from the motion being passed, and this covers all the 58 sectors. We now consider the motion of 1 November 2017 to have been satisfied.

  • Robin Walker – 2017 Statement on Release of Brexit Sectoral Reports

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robin Walker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union, to the House of Commons on 28 November 2017.

    Following the Opposition day debate motion on 1 November, the Government committed to making arrangements to respond to the motion which called on the Government to provide the Committee on Exiting the European Union with impact assessments arising from the sectoral analysis they have conducted with regards to the list of 58 sectors referred to in the answer of 26 June 2017 to written question 239.

    On 27 November the Department for Exiting the European Union provided analysis covering these 58 sectors of the economy to the House of Commons Committee on Exiting the EU and the House of Lords European Union Committee. The reports were also shared with the devolved Administrations on the same terms.

    As the Government have previously made clear, the information requested in the motion does not exist in the form requested. During the Opposition day debate I told the House “there has been some misunderstanding about what this sectoral analysis actually is. It is not a series of 58 impact assessments.” The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU also made this clear before the House of Lords EU Committee on 31 October and to the House at DEXEU oral questions on 2 November.

    The reports cover:

    i. a description of each sector;

    ii. the current EU regulatory regime;​
    iii. existing frameworks for how trade is facilitated between countries in this sector, and;

    iv. sector views.

    We now consider the motion of 1 November 2017 to have been satisfied.