This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
B1621 – Migrant Worker Bill 2020, Miss Maddie MP

Migrant Worker Bill 2020


A
BILL
TO
Increase the support available for migrants by allowing migrants to work

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Creation of Potential Settler Status
(1) Potential Settler Status (PSS) shall be given to—
(a) asylum-seekers, or
(b) dependants of asylum-seekers, or
(c) refugees
(2) PSS will end on the date application for immigration status that gives leave to remain is approved, the relevant visa is obtained, or the Secretary of State approves their status.
(3) PSS status will reapply if leave to remain is revoked or appeal of an immigration decision is underway.
(4) 'refugee' is defined in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
(5) 'asylum seeker' is defined in the Immigration Act 1971.

2 Support for PSS persons
(1)The Secretary of State may provide, or arrange for the provision of, support for all persons deemed a PSS under section 1 of this Act.
(2) Participation on the PSS Contribution Scheme will be optional.
(3) Any provision of support or support given through 2(1) will need to be provided after continued participation on a PSS Contribution Scheme.

3 PSS Contribution Scheme
(1)The Secretary of State may arrange for the creation of a PSS Contribution Scheme where:
a. persons with PSS status will undertake community work consisting of but not limited to:
i. litter picking
ii. bin emptying
iii. vegetation cutting, including trees, bushes, plants and grass
iv. unskilled labouring work
v. any work matching their skillset
(2) All work undertaken on the PSS Contribution Scheme will be paid at the over-25s minimum wage for each hour of work undertaken.
(3) All compensation will be loaded onto an ASPEN Debit Card.
(4) Persons must over over the age of 16 to participate on the scheme.
(5) All persons under 16 will receive support in alignment with Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

4 Amendments
Amend Section 95 (1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to read "...who can prove they are under the age of 16 and appear to the Secretary of State to be destitute or to be likely to become destitute within such period as may be prescribed."

5 Extent, commencement and short title
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom
(2) This Act comes into force immediately
(3) This Act may be cited as the Immigration Act 2020

Notes

Under the current system, migrant arriving in the UK are given support if destitute. This bill seeks to increase the levels of support provided to eligible people provided they work in return.

Asylum seekers receive £37.75 for each person in a household. The allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. The card can be used to get cash from a cash machine. If someone has been refused asylum, they receive somewhere to live and £35.39 per person on a payment card. There are additional payments for young children and pregnant women.

These are not very high amounts. This bill replaces those amounts with more generous levels of support provided the person participates on the PSS Contribution Scheme.

Sections being repealed: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ion-of-support

Levels of support currently available:
https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

0
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Seems sensible to me
0
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
I can't see any problems with this and it means that people fleeing persecution won't be at risk of starvation in the UK. Aye.
0
Exterminate
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Paying migrants at minimum wage to do menial jobs that local councils get actual residents to do at a probably higher wage? Can't see many 'normal' people liking this, may bring out the old line "coming over here, stealing our jobs".
Last edited by Exterminate; 1 month ago
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
"If someone has been refused asylum, they receive somewhere to live and £35.39 per person on a payment card."

That is a funny way of saying deportation.
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
Is section 95 (1) being repealed to amended?
The notes say 1 thing and the bill says another.

The notes also don't explain what practical effect section 4 of this bill has.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
"If someone has been refused asylum, they receive somewhere to live and £35.39 per person on a payment card."

That is a funny way of saying deportation.
I was outraged seeing that is the case. I thought Patel was in favour of deporting criminals.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by 04MR17)
Is section 95 (1) being repealed to amended?
The notes say 1 thing and the bill says another.

The notes also don't explain what practical effect section 4 of this bill has.
Section 4 changes section 95. Section 95 is the current Act giving power to the SoS to make a system for providing support to adults. The change to the section only gives the power to provide support for those under 16. Everyone else over 16 would receive support through this scheme where they work for the money.

As for discrepancies, bill is right, notes are wrong.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
I was outraged seeing that is the case. I thought Patel was in favour of deporting criminals.
And it isn't being remedied here why?
0
Iñigo de Loyola
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
"If someone has been refused asylum, they receive somewhere to live and £35.39 per person on a payment card."

That is a funny way of saying deportation.
I did notice that but thought that there had to be some reason for it being there because I didn't think Maddie would support allowing failed asylum claimants to stay in the UK indefinitely.
0
El Salvador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
I was going to say no because this seemingly makes asylum-seeking more attractive than it is in the UK, but if it pleases the rest of the government and party I can get past that.

Nevertheless, I will point out the fact that this isn't likely to change anything.

Employers are not likely to hire someone who is likely to be deported in 6 months' time, and could be cut short at any time without much advanced notice as well. Refugees and asylum seekers are also more likely to be without formal qualifications or work experience I believe. Even Hongkongers in the UK with the LOTR that allows them to work (and very likely to be able to get the BNO visa next year) are struggling to find jobs. The best chance for these people will be establishments owned by immigrants from the same country.

But I also don't see the harm is potentially saving the state even maybe £300 a year. The issue however is the implementation of this. How are you going to encourage them to go look for a job? How much money will it cost instead of track their actual income and stuff?
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
An interesting proposal, i'm not entirely certain about the appearance of it being a back door for quasi illegal work but it seems everyone others are supportive so im prepared to go along with it.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
Mr Speaker, i am undecided as things stand and will thus monitor the debate.

May i ask the Hon. Member what she says to the accusation that these people will take jobs which should exist for our own native Brits. I also share the Prime Minister's concern that this makes asylum more attractive given that asylum is still too generous.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Iñigo de Loyola)
I did notice that but thought that there had to be some reason for it being there because I didn't think Maddie would support allowing failed asylum claimants to stay in the UK indefinitely.
It is ending. The £37.75 per week is what is currently handed out. That amount will only remain in place for under 16s who cannot work. Everyone else loses all support and will only receive money if they agree to join the scheme and do menial jobs. Section 4 makes the change and admittedly it wasn't explained that well in the notes.
(Original post by El Salvador)
I was going to say no because this seemingly makes asylum-seeking more attractive than it is in the UK, but if it pleases the rest of the government and party I can get past that.

Nevertheless, I will point out the fact that this isn't likely to change anything.

Employers are not likely to hire someone who is likely to be deported in 6 months' time, and could be cut short at any time without much advanced notice as well. Refugees and asylum seekers are also more likely to be without formal qualifications or work experience I believe. Even Hongkongers in the UK with the LOTR that allows them to work (and very likely to be able to get the BNO visa next year) are struggling to find jobs. The best chance for these people will be establishments owned by immigrants from the same country.

But I also don't see the harm is potentially saving the state even maybe £300 a year. The issue however is the implementation of this. How are you going to encourage them to go look for a job? How much money will it cost instead of track their actual income and stuff?
(Original post by Rakas21)
Mr Speaker, i am undecided as things stand and will thus monitor the debate.

May i ask the Hon. Member what she says to the accusation that these people will take jobs which should exist for our own native Brits. I also share the Prime Minister's concern that this makes asylum more attractive given that asylum is still too generous.
I feel you two have confused the bill slightly which is my fault. It will be made clearer. This bill does not give migrants the legal right to apply for jobs and work.

Current system: government gives migrants money without conditions. That money is in the notes (£37.75 per person).

Proposed system: The £37.75 ends and the government gives migrants minimum wage in return for working for the government doing menial jobs. The employer is the government (there are no external employers involved) and if there is no work the migrants don't receive any funds.

On the point of taking jobs from natives, we always hear about how Brits aren't wanting to work in farms and employers need to contract workers from abroad. This government labour force will fill in the gaps. It's a scheme that creates a fully flexible supply of dirt cheap labour.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
It is ending. The £37.75 per week is what is currently handed out. That amount will only remain in place for under 16s who cannot work. Everyone else loses all support and will only receive money if they agree to join the scheme and do menial jobs. Section 4 makes the change and admittedly it wasn't explained that well in the notes.

I feel you two have confused the bill slightly which is my fault. It will be made clearer. This bill does not give migrants the legal right to apply for jobs and work.

Current system: government gives migrants money without conditions. That money is in the notes (£37.75 per person).

Proposed system: The £37.75 ends and the government gives migrants minimum wage in return for working for the government doing menial jobs. The employer is the government (there are no external employers involved) and if there is no work the migrants don't receive any funds.

On the point of taking jobs from natives, we always hear about how Brits aren't wanting to work in farms and employers need to contract workers from abroad. This government labour force will fill in the gaps. It's a scheme that creates a fully flexible supply of dirt cheap labour.
I actually understood it that way so it's fine but that's my point, your removing jobs which could go to native people. While its true that some jobs are undesirable, arguably people should not have the choice. We have more long term unemployed than asylum seekers.
0
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(2) All work undertaken on the PSS Contribution Scheme will be paid at the over-25s minimum wage for each hour of work undertaken.
...
(4) Persons must over over the age of 16 to participate on the scheme.

Wouldn't this mean that a PSS potentially earns more than a young British national of the same age? If you have an 18 year old doing a minimum wage job which would be considered "unskilled labouring work", they would start their rate of pay at £6.45, whereas a 16-24 year old PSS would earn the higher rate of £8.72 for the same work.

Would it not make more sense to align the pay from the PSS contribution scheme to the same age-determined minimum wage rates which everybody else has?
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by LPK)
Wouldn't this mean that a PSS potentially earns more than a young British national of the same age? If you have an 18 year old doing a minimum wage job which would be considered "unskilled labouring work", they would start their rate of pay at £6.45, whereas a 16-24 year old PSS would earn the higher rate of £8.72 for the same work.

Would it not make more sense to align the pay from the PSS contribution scheme to the same age-determined minimum wage rates which everybody else has?
That's a fair point and a good idea. To save money we can align them to the minimum wage rate for 16 year olds.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
I assume it would be way easier to just pay them the appropriate minimum wage for their age group, which is probably the fair thing to do anyway.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Rakas21)
I actually understood it that way so it's fine but that's my point, your removing jobs which could go to native people. While its true that some jobs are undesirable, arguably people should not have the choice. We have more long term unemployed than asylum seekers.
Jobs which natives people don't want to do? Farms, for example, are largely dependent on foreign labour. If British people wanted to work on farms they would apply but they don't so how else do we fill in labour shortages?
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
I feel you two have confused the bill slightly which is my fault. It will be made clearer. This bill does not give migrants the legal right to apply for jobs and work.

Current system: government gives migrants money without conditions. That money is in the notes (£37.75 per person).

Proposed system: The £37.75 ends and the government gives migrants minimum wage in return for working for the government doing menial jobs. The employer is the government (there are no external employers involved) and if there is no work the migrants don't receive any funds.

On the point of taking jobs from natives, we always hear about how Brits aren't wanting to work in farms and employers need to contract workers from abroad. This government labour force will fill in the gaps. It's a scheme that creates a fully flexible supply of dirt cheap labour.
Aren't you concerned this makes asylums more attractive?

Can you explain what these menial jobs are for the government?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (711)
33.95%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (895)
42.74%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (395)
18.86%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (93)
4.44%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed