(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policies on migration.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this area of policy, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time and granting this debate. Few policy areas generate as much unwanted noise as migration, and my aim in securing this debate is to have a reasonable, rational, evidence-informed discussion on the impact of the Government’s migration policies. Those policies are also looked at individually, whether that is Brexit and the impact of the end of freedom of movement, asylum, or other areas of immigration. I am grateful to the Father of the House and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for co-sponsoring this debate. They both bring considerable expertise to this area, and I am looking forward to their contributions.
We are living in a world that is characterised by increased, near-constant movement. Goods, capital and services are increasingly unburdened by borders. One central pillar of the globalisation that we have been living through over the past 40 years or so is that human beings have to some extent also become units that can be moved around the world to enable profit. For decades, cheap labour and trained labour has been used here to lower costs and keep things going, and while we withdrew almost entirely from vocational training, we have seen increased immigration. For many working-class communities, their experience of immigration has been a form of wage suppression.
This is one of the most complex areas of policy that we encounter, cutting across several Departments and dividing public opinion. Specifically, we must begin to take a more focused look at the evidence of policy impact. Why has net migration hit a record high, and what will its impact be? According to the Office for National Statistics, net migration stood at 606,000 people in 2022, with 1.2 million people arriving. Of that number, 925,000 were non-EU nationals. Those numbers include refugees under the respective Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, but that growth has slowed over the past few quarters as the impact of those two schemes decreased. Despite that record number, the Government continue to say that net migration will decrease. That is what successive Conservative Governments have said since 2010, but despite such promises, no decrease has ever been achieved. That huge gap between rhetoric and reality is borne out by the figures. Net migration stood at 256,000 in 2010, and is now 606,000. That is the reality of the situation.
The Minister will stand up and try to say that the Labour party voted against all the Bills that claim to address those increases, but the reality is that none of that legislation has achieved the Government’s stated aims. Net migration has increased, small boat crossings have increased, and the asylum backlog has increased, and all that is because the increased movement of people, and increased migration, is a reality of the modern world.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentioned the increase in boat crossings, but overall the number of people coming over the channel, not just in boats but in trucks and through other irregular forms, has actually decreased over time, has it not? The problem, partly, is that other regular forms of entry into this country are being tightened and people are prevented from them, which forces many people into dangerous forms of migration.
Dan Carden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and share his view on the need for legal and safe crossing routes to this country. I look forward to hearing other contributions on that point.
Hundreds of millions of people around the world are displaced from their homes because of climate, poverty, famine, drought and conflict. Many more seek a better life as economic migrants. We must acknowledge that reality and engage with communities here at home that have understandable concerns about the effects of that increase on their ability to buy a house and access health and education services as well as what those increases mean for the public purse.
It is impossible to understand the ruptures in our politics over the last decade without thinking seriously about immigration as a social, political and economic issue. One of the biggest causes of the Brexit vote was a response in many working-class committees to being told that nothing could be done about the forces of globalisation. The mass migration of people around the world will continue, but our immigration system can be managed more effectively, can be more efficient and can be more humane. I believe that our politics needs to put more emphasis on addressing the root cause of some of the concerns that people have about the impact of immigration on suppressing wages and placing pressure on housing stock in local communities, if we are to continue to live in the open, tolerant society that we all wish to have.
There are some areas that we can address to improve the migration system for all involved. I want to use my time to discuss three such areas: visa costs, labour shortages and backlogs at the Home Office. On visa costs, the total minimum cost of the current 10-year settlement route for an adult with indefinite leave to remain stands at £12,836.50. For families, that is extortionate, with fees paid for each individual, including children. Those punishingly high fees force many applicants into debt. While there is a clear need for the visa system to pay for itself, in some cases the cost of visas stands many times higher than the administrative costs of processing them. To take one example, the fee for in- country naturalisation stands at £1,330, yet Home Office figures show that the unit cost for facilitating naturalisation stands at just £372. While those eligible to apply for a fee waiver may do so, applicants cannot apply for a fee waiver for indefinite leave. That makes little sense, especially for those who come to work in our NHS or social care. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on that. Will he look at giving them the opportunity to apply for a fee waiver? The substantial visa cost does not include ancillary costs such as legal advice, translation services and the enrolment of biometric data.
Further, it is not just the substantial financial cost that presents a challenge. Repeat applications, which take an increasingly long time, must be made. Such applications are not subject to a service standard, and applicants are also subject to a default “no recourse to public funds” condition. That has an obvious detrimental impact on applicants, causing them stress and placing them in a form of bureaucratic purgatory. Surely it does not have to be this way.
A joint report by Praxis, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, which are all organisations that do hugely valuable work in this area, highlights that if applicants had the option to apply for longer blocks of leave—for example, five years instead of two-and-a-half years—applicants’ stress and anxiety and Home Office caseworkers’ workloads would decrease. That would go a considerable way towards guaranteeing security for those who may have already lived and worked in the UK for a long period of time.
On costs, the Home Office could cap them at the administrative cost only, or grant an automatic fee waiver to those who have had their “no recourse to public funds” condition lifted. These are all little measures that could make a big difference.
I have heard the Immigration Minister say in this House on several occasions that the UK visa service is now meeting or exceeding every one of its service standards, but that means nothing if, as we currently see, many applications are not subject to those service standards. Will the Minister commit to introducing a service standard for all applications to improve performance? Will he also indicate what recent steps his Department has taken to simplify the visa application system and lessen the administrative burden on both applicants and caseworkers? It is clear that there is so much to be done in this area.
Labour shortages in areas such as health, social care and hospitality can only be described as hellish across the UK. Sector after sector tell us that they need more access to skilled staff and they simply do not have that access at the moment. The impact of the shortages is obvious. They act as a drag on our whole economy, holding back prosperity and reducing the quality of life for people across the country. Shortages affect productivity and public services and neither can be improved if we do not fill vacancies. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation estimates that, if labour shortages are not addressed, they will cost the UK economy a staggering £39 billion a year. That is a catastrophe and the Government must not allow their rhetoric on reducing net migration to act as a barrier in addressing that huge fiscal black hole.
Increasing access to skills training and education will go some way over the years to improving labour shortages, but we must also look to migration. Employers have long decried the onerous, bureaucratic and time-consuming nature of recruiting staff from abroad. While employers should make every effort to recruit locally, the Government should not act as a roadblock, stopping local businesses such as restaurants and other businesses across the hospitality sector, the NHS or social care from recruiting the staff they need from further afield.
Local businesses tell me of their frustration. They do not understand why, after Brexit, after leaving the EU and the end of freedom of movement, now we are in control of our own borders, we are not using that control to allow UK businesses to recruit to prosper and grow. It is clearly in the public interest to have a thriving visitor economy. For Liverpool, it makes up more than 50% of our economy. It is a matter of life and death that we have a properly staffed national health service and address shortages in social care. As it stands, the Government are sticking to their line that they must keep net migration down, but I think they should shift to look at how we can use migration policy to address the labour shortages. Many measures have been introduced in the form of a temporary exception to the skilled worker criteria under the points-based system and the introduction of a specific visa for seasonal agricultural workers, but workforce challenges are clearly not being solved. The Government must go further. I am aware that the Migration Advisory Committee recently launched a call for evidence on reform of the shortage occupation list. I urge the Government to heed its calls when they arrive.
Finally on labour shortages, why have the Government not moved to allow asylum seekers the right to work? There is support from both sides of the House for this policy change. Refugee Action highlights that the ban currently costs the public purse around £500 million a year. All available evidence, including the Home Office’s own leaked report from September 2020, refutes the Government’s argument that enabling asylum seekers to work is a pull factor. I have met many people residing in my constituency seeking asylum who also want to contribute to their new communities and are desperate for the right to work and to earn a living.
All these issues are made much worse by delays in the Home Office’s decision making. My caseworkers frequently encounter cases with almost indeterminate delay. Although they try to make progress through the UK Visas and Immigration hotline, often responses are non-specific, unhelpful and sometimes contradictory.
To give just one example, one of my constituents applied for asylum in January 2019. She completed her interview in the same month and was referred to the national referral mechanism, as she was identified as a potential victim of trafficking. In November 2021, a positive conclusive grounds decision was reached on the case—in other words, she was identified as a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking. The nearly three years of waiting for a decision were difficult for her and her children, not knowing where their future may lie.
In February 2022, my office was told by the Home Office that my constituent would receive a decision on the asylum part of her claim within six months. That created an obvious expectation from my constituent. But when six months had passed, she informed me that no decision had been forthcoming. After my office notified the Home Office of that, we were told there was no timeframe for a decision, despite the previous commitment. My constituent’s solicitor then issued the Home Office with a pre-action protocol. The Home Office committed to an asylum decision by 1 May. No decision came on 1 May. We wrote again to the Home Office, and I am still awaiting a response. Four and a half years have passed since the initial application, and nearly a year since the Home Office committed to making a decision. That case is not an anomaly; it is one of many I could have chosen to illustrate the point. I would appreciate it if the Minister’s office could reach out to mine to discuss just a few such cases that would greatly benefit from his intervention.
More widely, backlogs are now a well-known aspect of our migration system. They are a feature, not a bug. The Minister has hinted that a quick decision-making process would act as a pull factor again. However, among other issues, that ignores the huge cost of asylum accommodation in the meantime. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide clarity on this point in his closing remarks.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The cost of housing asylum seekers is huge. There is no ability for local communities who might believe they could do it cheaper and better in alternative forms of accommodation to draw down money. The Home Office has paid huge amounts, often to corporate organisations, even though local organisations would be able to do it better. Giving asylum seekers the ability to draw down that money on an individual or a community basis, and allowing communities and councils to organise accommodation, would at least help to alleviate some of the trauma that people face in Home Office hotels.
Dan Carden
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point, and I hope that this debate is a space for exactly those kinds of ideas so that we start to see improvements in the system.
Delays seem to be worse in the asylum system, even as the Home Office chooses to be selective, applying service standards to other types of application, such as for naturalisation or further leave to remain. The backlog on so-called legacy cases has started to fall very slightly. However, the Prime Minister’s commitment to clearing the backlog will not be met at the “current pace”—not my words but those of the Home Secretary.
There have been smart moves to address the huge backlog. For instance, last week, the Government quietly dropped the two-tier refugee system introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That is a perfect example of the Government very quietly replacing a noisy, reactionary policy with one that has more chance of being workable. It is also illustrative of the desperate need for a coherent and honest long-term strategy in this area.
We all want a migration system that works for all our constituents, those seeking asylum and those wanting to work or visit our country. I am grateful for the time to put some of my thoughts on the record.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Members can see that this is a time-restricted debate. If everyone could show some constraint, it would be useful to get people in.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
As a co-sponsor of the debate, I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and I echo virtually everything said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). We debate immigration quite a lot in this Chamber, but mostly the latest disaster or controversial piece of immigration legislation. Occasionally, it would be good to look at how we can fashion immigration policy that suits all of us, in the round and over the long term, in so much as it can.
Perhaps the title of the debate should be “Governments’ policies on migration”, because it is not just about this Government: all Governments have problems with migration. It goes up and down. This is an attempt at a measured debate on an issue where we often do not have measured debates, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for starting the debate in a very measured way.
The subject is topical, but when is immigration not topical? The net figure of 606,000 people coming to the UK was recently announced, but it is always a mistake to be guided by a net figure, and it is certainly a mistake to have a net migration target. The problem with a net migration target is that we have control, in as much as we do, over only one side of the equation; we have no control over the number of people who choose to leave. If a Government are running the country so brilliantly that nobody wants to leave, clearly the number of people coming here is going to outstrip the number of people leaving. It is a something of a false figure, which I will come back to in a minute. We know the figure is so high because of certain groups of people who are here for very good reasons.
The latest figures on small boats are catching up with last year’s figures, as we discussed with the Home Secretary at the Home Affairs Committee yet again yesterday. Recent forecasts from Italy predict that 400,000 people will seek to enter Italy from Africa this year, which is four times the level of 2022. Some 80,000 people have entered so far this year, and that figure was from a few weeks ago. Obviously, that will have an impact on the rest of Europe, including the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister recently attended a European Political Community summit in Moldova, which discussed more transnational approaches to migration; we need to see far more such approaches.
Most of us would agree, alas, that the migration system is pretty broken, has been for some time and shows little chance of getting fixed any time soon. It has been largely characterised by a series of short-term crises: a record number of people on small boats coming across the channel; the overwhelming of processing centres such as Manston; the fact that 9,000 of the 15,000 Afghan nationals who were legally, and quite rightly, airlifted from Kabul almost two years ago are still inappropriately housed in hotels; the pressure on hotel accommodation; the shortage of labour in the hospitality industry, the care sector and other areas, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned; the Windrush scandal; and pressure on the Home Office, which is a fairly dysfunctional Department. All of that gets conflated into the single issue of an immigration crisis.
However, the issue is not just about irregular immigration, but about regular migration levels and about how we decide the skills we want, how we hand out those visas —I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton about the overpricing of visas in many areas—and how we fashion our points system. We need workforce planning and we need to consider the sustainability of how we deal with the increased population, including the pressures on homes for people who have already lived here for some time. The whole sustainability issue and the availability of services is hugely complex.
I want to touch on three main areas: irregular migration, migration policy for planned migration and the global issue, which will probably be the biggest single challenge that we and many other western nations will face.
First, on irregular migration, we know the figures. We know there has been a move to small boats because of the huge success, frankly, of Border Force and British agencies, working with French agencies, around Eurotunnel, ferries and lorries. It is now very difficult to get across the channel covertly in the back of a lorry, which is why people have moved to using small boats. Whatever we think about migration policy—whatever we think about the number of asylum seekers we should or could be taking in this country—paying a people smuggler to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world is the worst possible way to gain access to the United Kingdom. We absolutely must do more to clamp down on it, which is why the Government’s policy, whether controversial or not, is singularly aimed at cutting off that dangerous and criminal supplier.
The first problem is this. We are continuing to subsidise the French police force, to the tune of, now, half a billion pounds, but although they are intercepting more migrants before they get into the boats—the interception rate is now about 54%, which is great—the trouble is that they do not arrest those migrants, they do not detain them, and they are there again the following night and the night after that, with a new boat every time, and they only have to get lucky once. Until we can reach an agreement with the French that they will detain those migrants and scrutinise their status in France itself and then take action, or that if migrants are intercepted in the channel by Border Force or air agencies they can be taken back to France if that is where they started, our problem will remain.
We have not been able to reach an agreement with the French, but there are ways in which progress could be made. Several of us have had discussions with French politicians who see some merit in such an agreement, and I think there are negotiations that could be had, but that is not happening, although it is the long-term, sustainable solution to the problem of the boats. Why would someone pay €4,000 to a people smuggler for what is effectively a round trip, ending up back in France?
Secondly, there is the issue of processing in the United Kingdom, which is far too slow. As we discovered yesterday in the Home Affairs Committee, even given the increase in resources and staff it will take longer than until the end of the year to deal with the legacy backlog, let alone all the people who have come in since June last year. We must become much more efficient. I am glad that the Minister mentioned various new schemes and projects that the Home Office is undertaking, but we need to double up on that; perhaps he will give some more details later.
Thirdly, there is the issue of returns agreements. There are those who think that everything was rosy before Brexit. I am not going to blame Brexit for any of this—indeed, I remain a fan of Brexit—but in the last year of our full membership of the European Union, under the Dublin regulations we attempted to return to the EU 8,500 migrants who did not have a case for being in the UK, and the EU accepted 105 of them; that is 1.2%. So it was not working in the first place, when we were in the EU. Last year, only 215 of the 45,755 migrants who came here irregularly were deported. We have to do a lot better, because we know how problematic it is when certain countries simply will not take back migrants who have left those countries and applied for asylum here.
The whole issue has been discussed ad nauseam in the House of Lords, and will be back in this House next month in the form of the Illegal Migration Bill. There is of course the controversial situation surrounding the Rwanda flights, on which we are expecting a judgment soon. It is an apparently extreme solution, but what else can we do unilaterally if we do not have the agreement of our neighbours to take people back? We know it can be a deterrent, because when the Select Committee went to Calais in January and spoke to many of the officials in charge of the operations there, they said that when the Rwanda scheme was announced there was a big surge in the number of migrants approaching the French authorities about regularising their status in France, because they did not want to risk being put on a plane to Rwanda; but it has not happened yet, so the deterrent effect has subsided. That is why the scheme is so important, controversial though it may be.
I think we should be doing much more—and I have supported cross-party amendments on this in the past—to make better use of the migrants who have come to the UK and are having their claims processed. It is a complete waste of time and labour that they are not allowed to work in a properly organised way, certainly after a few months here, when we have so many labour shortages.
Then there is the foreign aid issue. It annoys me when we are accused of being far less generous than other countries in granting asylum claims, when last year France had something like 150,000 asylum applications—more than this country—but granted only a third of them. They were much tougher; indeed, many European countries do not accept any asylum applications from Albania at all. The Committee has just produced a report asking why on earth we should be taking so many Albanian asylum applications, other than in, say, trafficking cases.
This country also has one of the most generous foreign aid programmes, which supports refugees closer to the homes from which they have had to flee, as any of us who have been to places such as the Zaatari camp in Jordan will know. At one stage there were 85,000 Syrian refugees there, and we were one of the biggest donors to the camp. Something like 90% of the children there were receiving an education in schools that were funded by our taxpayers, and that were often staffed by teachers from Britain or those trained by British authorities. Those people just wanted to go back to Syria as soon as it was safe to do so, rather than come to the UK or another European country, so we should always consider the huge number of refugees we support overseas, no less generously than we do those for whom it is more appropriate to come to the UK.
We have to decide what sort of immigration system we want—who we want coming into the country—now that we have the power to fashion our own policy more than we did when we were part of the European Union. Of the 606,000 net who came to the UK last year, 174,200 were from Ukraine. Nobody is going to argue with the merits of that. Some 160,700 were from Hong Kong. Again, most people would see a justified case for that. I fear, as somebody who has been sanctioned by China and knows a little more about this, that that number will only rise. There is a big Hong Kong Chinese population in this country. They are more easily assimilated through existing links—family links and others—they tend to be very entrepreneurial, setting up businesses after studying here, and they really add to the economic prospects of this country.
Then there are the 155,000-plus dependants who came in—largely Indian nationals—and the many dependants who came on the back of foreign students. Is that where we should be prioritising an increase in population? We want foreign students to come to this country. We want them to study successfully here and then perhaps stay successfully here, contributing to the economy, setting up businesses and, with their expertise and skills, adding to the UK economy, but are valuable places in our creaking infrastructure being taken up by the dependants who seem to come with them? The Government are now looking at that issue.
We must also recognise that we have a very varied workforce, and that is a good thing. Some 20% of the UK workforce was born abroad, and that figure is likely to rise. That is a good thing, as long as we can integrate, and sustain and provide services and employment for everybody to benefit from, but we do have problems. Some 45,000 seasonal farm workers have been brought into this country, and that figure has increased, but we still have a shortfall of 40,000. We have a problem with our own British citizens working in the rural economy. Only 8,000 British citizens signed up for the Pick for Britain campaign jobs. We have a million job vacancies in the United Kingdom. We need to have a grown-up debate about how we fill those vacancies, because surely we want people who will do those jobs well and are appropriate for them. They are going to earn, pay tax and contribute to the economic wealth of the country.
Germany is desperately trying to recruit graduates and blue-collar workers under its points-based system. The trouble is that that is taking a lot of skilled health workers from places such as Albania, which is making Albania less and less sustainable, as the economy collapses in that country. Canada wants 1.5 million more migrants by 2025, and South Korea is bringing in 110,000 lower-skilled migrants.
In this country we completely fetishise the numbers. For me, it is not just about the numbers, although the numbers have to be sustainable—I know there are big pressures on housing, particularly in the south-east of England, in my part of the world—but it is really about control. It is about making sure that we welcome the people who are most appropriately accommodated in this country and who can most contribute to the well- being and economic prospects of this country. It is about controlling who comes here, rather than just raw numbers.
The last consideration is the global context, because the problem, according to the Institute for Economics and Peace, is that 19 countries are facing the highest number of ecological threats over the next 30 years. A total of 2.1 billion people live in countries that lack the resilience to deal with the expected major ecological changes over the next 30 years, and a large proportion of them are from sub-Sahel Africa, from countries that are among the most unstable and have some of the highest birth rates.
Those people are on the move. The birth rate in European countries, Japan and elsewhere is falling, so we have to decide what will be the long-term future of global migration. We can only do that in collaboration with other countries. Do we want African countries to thrive and to have economies that can sustain their own population and that can adapt to take advantage of climate change by generating energy, or whatever it may be? Can we invest in some of those countries, or will we see people increasingly coming to these shores? How would we deal with that?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would like me to shut up now, but this is a hugely complex situation that requires a long-term plan and a long-term vision, in collaboration with our neighbours. Without that, we risk going from one crisis to another, and nobody benefits from that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will have to introduce a seven-minute time limit, which may need to be reduced further to get everyone in.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on securing this debate. I was pleased to support their bid to the Backbench Business Committee. I hear the call for reasonableness and rationality in this debate, but I hope they will understand if I also express a little frustration.
My office has dealt with more than 1,400 immigration cases in one form or another since 2015. I have sat in my constituency surgery while people have pulled out their biometric ID card that says “No right to work” and “No recourse to public funds.” That is humiliating, disheartening and inhumane, and it speaks to everything that is wrong with the Government’s policies in this area.
The Foreign Office spends millions of pounds a year on an advertising campaign proclaiming “Britain is Great” in glossy aeroplane magazines, expo pavilions, embassies and visa processing centres. Although the advertising says “Britain is Great,” the message from the Home Office is that Britain is closed: closed to the ministers of religion who want to come here to provide cover in parishes and faith communities while local ministers have a holiday; closed to the women’s rights activists from Malawi who are invited to speak at all-party parliamentary group meetings in this House on violence reduction and economic empowerment; closed now to the families of international research students at some of our finest universities; closed to German rock bands that just want to play a few gigs and meet their fans before going home.
Britain is closed to interpreters who supported UK forces and companies in Afghanistan. Sometimes it is even closed to people who hold UK passports and who worked in our NHS but, because they also happen to hold a Sudanese passport, have been told they are not allowed to come here. It is closed to students who have won Chevening scholarships; closed, unless people are willing to pay hundreds, and sometimes thousands of pounds in processing fees and ongoing costs for visa renewals and access to the NHS, whether or not their visa allows them to have a job and pay into the tax system.
Britain is closed to Sana, the clinical psychologist I met at the Red Cross VOICES event yesterday. She is stuck in substandard accommodation and has been refused the right to work, while the NHS cries out for trained staff like her. It is closed, completely closed, to anyone—men, women and children—who might be fleeing war, famine or oppression, simply because they arrived here on a small boat when no safe or legal route is open to them.
The hostile environment is not just directed at refugees and asylum seekers; it pervades every aspect of the Home Office and the UK Border Force’s operation, whether it is the interminable waits for passport checks in airports, the chronic under-resourcing of application processing or even the delays our own staff members face in trying to get answers for constituents. It is all deliberately designed to drag things out, with the aim of making people just give up and go back to where they came from.
The Government’s mindset always seems to be that arriving on these islands is some kind of privilege to be striven for and that people who want to settle, or even just visit for anything other than a holiday, should largely be treated with suspicion and a working assumption that they are planning to abscond or overstay their visa.
Several hon. Members rose—
Patrick Grady
I will not give way, given the time available
Anyone who doubts that that is the Government’s position should just look at their obsession with setting arbitrary net migration targets and then the repeated failure to meet those. Where did they even come from in the first place? Who decided that we needed a net migration target of 100,000, rather than 110,000 or 95,000? Perhaps it was just picked out of thin air because it sounded good. Rather than make the positive case for growing our population and workforce, the Tories sought to play to the lowest common denominator, trying to out-UKIP UKIP or various other outfits on the hard and far right.
Meanwhile organisations in commerce and industry across the country are desperate for staff. Some days it seems that just about every bar, restaurant and retail outlet in Glasgow has signs up saying, “Staff wanted”. Crops are being ploughed back under the earth because farms cannot get enough help, and NHS backlogs are literally costing lives as staff leave to work in other countries. I hear from the academic and cultural sectors that people are put off even applying to come here because the attitude is so restrictive. All of this simply diminishes the UK in the eyes of those institutions and the wider global community. The Government proclaim, “Britain is Great” but then allow their outriders and Back Benchers to raise the prospect of the UK joining Belarus and Russia as countries that have withdrawn from the European convention on human rights.
It is also worth reflecting briefly that the net migration figure is just that: a net figure, which, at least in theory, counts the number of people who emigrate from the UK. For centuries, people have left these islands to make their homes overseas. Sometimes they did so violently, forcing indigenous communities off their ancestral lands and destroying ancient ways of life. Sometimes they did so as the result of violence: people were cleared from the highlands to make way for sheep, or they were in search of pastures where crops would not be devastated by disease and blight. Even today, people seek sunnier climes or different opportunities and experiences, and are often welcomed in a way that is not necessarily reciprocated on these shores. Brexit, of course, has made this so much more difficult now. The very process of getting through the airport in many European countries takes longer and can be more complicated, let alone the effort of studying or getting a job, or putting down roots, as generations over the past 40 years had been able to do so easily.
I said during the debate on the Illegal Migration Bill that it might come as a bit of a surprise to some of the more excitable elements among the Government Back Benchers, who are obviously not represented here today, but the world is round—the Earth is a globe. There is no edge people can be pushed off in the hope that they will just go away. As the fantastic Glasgow charity Refuweegee puts it, “we’re a’ fae somewhere”. Immigration, emigration and migration, in all its forms, always has been and always will be part of the human experience. We cannot simply pull up a drawbridge. We have to be willing to welcome people who are seeking refuge or who want to contribute, not least because one day we, individually or collectively, might look for similar treatment from others.
That is certainly the vision the SNP has of an independent Scotland, where migration policy helps to grow our population and works for our economy and society. If the Government were willing to devolve powers, we could begin to do that immediately. But the Minister wrongly claims that Scotland is not taking its fair share of asylum seekers, or seems to expect local authorities to implement Home Office policies without Home Office funding, and then says that Scotland does not need to have a different immigration policy from the rest of the UK.
Ultimately, it will not be up to this Government to decide. People in Glasgow North and across Scotland want an asylum and immigration system that treats people with fairness and dignity. That is not what is being delivered by the current Tory Government, and there is little evidence that the pro-Brexit Labour party would do much to change things either. The actions of the two pro-Brexit, anti-independence parties make the case for Scotland to become independent, because by refusing to adapt the current regime or devolve powers to Holyrood, they show that only way for Scotland to have an immigration system fit for purpose in the modern world is with those full powers of independence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
What an interesting choice. Aha! But there is no choice, as the first choice is always the Father of the House.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
If the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) does not mind, I will not go too far down his line, except to say that if that is his appeal at the next general election, SNP Members are more likely to get the 37% of the vote that they got in 2017 rather than the percentage that they think they might get if they had everything their own way.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for proposing this debate, and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).
It is worth remembering that the population of London 11,000 years ago was nothing. People migrated to London after the end of the Little Ice Age. If most of us look back through our family histories, or the family histories of those our families married into, we will find a great deal of mixture. I know that when some of my grandchildren were at school in California, there was an incredible mix of people in their classes.
A few days ago, Mr Speaker gave a reception in Speaker’s House for Multicultural Falklands. In the last census in the Falkland Islands, there was a population of 3,662, with 68 nationalities—from A for Australia to Z for Zimbabwe. If I may say so, I pay particular tribute to Zimbabweans who helped in the mine clearing and who obeyed the normal Falkland Islands rule that if a person lives there for more than 20 months, they will want to stay there and go on living there.
In 2005, in issue 3, volume 38, of the International Migration Review, which is linked to the Centre for Migration Studies, there is an article about the factors that make and unmake migration policies. In summary, migration policies often fail to achieve their declared objectives or have unintended consequences—well, that is a big surprise. It suggests that there are three reasons: the social dynamics of the migration process; factors linked to globalisation and transnationalism; and political systems.
I was reminded by somebody whom I met just before lunch today, who had been on a course run by the Royal College of Defence Studies in Belgrave Square, that 10 or so years ago, when they were having discussions about what the major issues would be over the next two or three decades, it was decided that it was going to be migration from Africa, where there are many unstable states, where climate change is making a difference and where there is not an ordinary flexible political or economic system. We all know that flexible economic systems lead to a growth in prosperity, as has been shown in many countries around the world. Where that is denied and there is high-level persistent civil war, people want to move out. Our ancestors did; we would.
However, that is not to say that we can just forget about migration. If there is uncontrolled migration against the policies of a country, there is unrest and uproar. This is one of the very few countries where, in a democratically elected Parliament, there are no extremists—whether from the left or the right. Some would put that down in part to our parliamentary system; others would put it down to other factors. I think that it is because, over the past 50 years or so, our migration and immigration policies have been debated fiercely.
There have been great arguments ever since James Callaghan, who was Home Secretary in the late 1960s, started putting controls on British passport holders from east Africa, even though, five years later, the Government—Robert Carr in particular and Edward Heath—rightly decided to admit the Ugandan Asians. I was honoured to be at Buckingham Palace when the King, in his first big public occasion, had a celebration service for the 50th anniversary of the Ugandan Asians coming here. We stood up and did what was right. We are doing the same thing with the people from Hong Kong, from Syria and from Ukraine.
My grandmother was a host to some White Russians after the great war. My parents had a Hungarian refugee in the 1950s, pushing one of the children out of their room. My wife and I had Ugandan Asians and Zimbabwean refugees. There are people who are prepared to do their bit.
That is not to say that there is uncontrolled immigration, although I do warn visitors I take round the Palace of Westminster that the memorial to the Kindertransport process was something that people are proud of now, but that many opposed at the time.
Then there is the question: why only 10,000 children? What about their parents and the like? Some of those questions are unanswerable in a seven-minute contribution, but I would say that a Government—whether this Government or any alternative Government—who expect to get attention from both sides of the House should try to have policies that are not only likely to be fair and effective and that have a degree of humanity, but that recognise that a country such as this cannot accept very large numbers of people coming outside the rules. Inside the rules is one thing; outside the rules is another. That is why my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has not had detailed criticism from me on what he is trying to achieve. We know that what he is trying to do is right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What a pleasure it is to follow the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). His contribution is always very wise—he is not called the Father of the House for nothing—and we thank him for that. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to sow into this important debate.
I love to be part of a nation that embraces others. The fact that many of our hospitals could not currently function without international staff is testament to the mutually beneficial role that legal migrants play in all areas of the fabric of this wonderful society in which we are so blessed to live.
I will mention four points to begin with and then focus specifically on migration and the fishing sector. First, nearly 40% of those who crossed the channel in 2022 came from just five countries—Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan—that are all in the top 12 of the Open Doors world watchlist, which details the countries that are the worst offenders for the persecution of Christians. That tells me that we open the doors for people who are fleeing due to persecution.
Secondly, yesterday an amendment was tabled in the other place to the Illegal Migration Bill that would make provision for an asylum pathway for individuals persecuted for their religion or belief. I ask the Minister and the Government to support the establishment of such a pathway.
Thirdly, pathway 3 of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme promised a pathway to 20,000 Afghans from vulnerable backgrounds, including at-risk religious minorities. The Government have promised to resettle more than 5,000 in the first year and up to 20,000 over the next five years. Currently, the pathway is open only to British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni. Again I ask whether that scheme will be opened to the groups identified as being at greatest risk.
Fourthly, I am mindful of something that has already been spoken about—those who have been in the system of hotels for almost two years. I have two companies in my constituency that are willing and able to give jobs to those people right now. If people have been accepted under the asylum system, why not give them the opportunity to work and fill some of the gaps that we have in our area?
I want to focus the rest of my speech on fishing and the visa system. I have been discussing this with Harry Wick from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation, with whom I have been working closely to find a solution to the question of fishing and migrant workers, and he has asked me to stress something that must underpin this discussion: it is important not to conflate those entering the UK illegally with the safe and legal migrant workers that UK industry depends on.
The media tends to shift attention from those who applied correctly and bring skills to add to our workforce in many different forms to images of illegal immigrants, which is an entirely different debate. As I have said, there are jobs in the UK that need to be filled by highly qualified workers, including in hospitals, and that is accepted. What is not so well understood is that there are roles lying empty that simply are not filled, but which do not require significant training or specific expertise. Those jobs are no less valuable to our society because of that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) referred to the farming sector. I encourage hon. Members to speak to a farmer who has crops dying in his fields because he cannot get the manual workers to come in. Low-skilled workers are an essential component of the workforce, and we cannot focus only on those with a degree education when other labour is just as essential. I know the Minister appreciates the point I am trying to make.
I am aware that lower-skilled labour is in short supply. The Home Office encourages industry not to look abroad but to look inwards to our own UK citizens, but they do not always fill the gap, whereas higher-skilled roles are filled by migrant workers through the points-based system. Given industry reports that labour supply is the biggest barrier to growth and that the UK labour market cannot fill our existing vacancies in either sphere, we need to understand our position in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to migration in a more specific way.
The very clear question for the Minister is this: does he not agree that it would be in the best interests of UK workers to backfill those lower-skilled vacancies with appropriately sourced and legal migrant workers, while promoting an education system that allows children to pursue a vocational focus that suits their personality, character and what they are able to do, rather than an academic one?
I once read a quote—it might be a bit spurious—that went like this: “If we tell a fish that it is stupid for being unable to climb a tree, we prevent the fish from understanding the depth of its capacity.” It is all about capacity. Those who want to be on the fishing boats have the capacity to understand how fishing works. Instead of berating those who struggle with algebra, we must have a system that allows them to see that perhaps their love of the outdoors is exactly what the local farmer is looking for.
The gap in labour need cannot be filled internally, and the system of outsourcing, particularly in fishing, is too onerous. The language of the sea is understood by all those who work it, and the language barrier on a boat is easily overcome by that common sea speak. Once again, I ask the Home Office to hear my plea. I spoke to the Minister before the debate to reiterate our request from the Westminster Hall debate two weeks ago.
I believe that this might be achieved by developing the existing seasonal workers scheme into something that can better support our fishing and farming communities, upon whom we rely three times a day, every single day, for our sustenance. That could also mean showing flexibility on the language requirement for skilled worker visas. The Minister knows my feelings on that. He has been very amicable in our meetings, and I genuinely appreciate it, as he knows. I am always trying to find solutions. For me, this is about solutions to the system, and I have given the Minister my thoughts about them.
I believe in change, but we need to move forward in a positive fashion to encourage migration for those who want to come here, work here, raise their families here and be a part of the wonderfully diverse British community —this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I am so pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate her on becoming a dame.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your kindness and your warm introduction. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Backbench Business Committee for organising the debate, which has been interesting.
As colleagues will know, I spent just over three years in the Home Office, so I am familiar with these issues, challenges and difficulties. I have lived and breathed the problems around the migration policies, the complexities of the systems and other rather difficult issues. There were never just a handful of issues; there are always multiple, deeply challenging issues.
I will highlight some specifics and, importantly, where we can do things differently. It is important to discuss a range of matters when covering migration, including economic migration, the labour market—I have a background in labour market economics and feel very strongly about that—and the establishment of safe routes. I am grateful to colleagues who have already touched on such routes. The Afghan resettlement scheme and Operation Pitting were, I remind the House, a deeply traumatising experience for everybody at the time, particularly those in government. I worked with officials who simply did not sleep at night while we were removing people from Afghanistan. There was also the British national overseas scheme, which was about our responsibility to support British passport holders overseas. There is also how we deal with the asylum system and illegal migration issues.
On the economic front—the labour market aspect, linked to the points-based immigration system—yes, we ended free movement when we left the EU, which was important, and the new system we have in place is very much governed by rules. We believe in firmness and fairness—fairness in particular—but also in people being able to come here based on their skills and qualifications and the labour market shortages faced by our country and our economy. I want to expand on that.
Britain should always be open to attract the brightest and the best from across the world in professions such as science, research and health in particular; we all remember the schemes to support health and care workers coming to our country. We can think about those routes and the categories of individuals I have mentioned, and yet we still hear cries—sometimes facile cries—that our numbers are far too high without an understanding of the contribution that people who are coming here make.
Under the points-based system, individuals are sponsored and pay thousands of pounds for their visas. On top of that, they pay thousands for the immigration health surcharge—and, by the way, many of them also end up being net contributors to the economy and higher rate taxpayers. These points are too easily overlooked when people just focus on numbers, and Members have touched on what happens when we do that.
I was in government for just over three years, and I was a lone voice in calling for a labour market strategy specifically to support the points-based immigration system. It is obvious that we need a labour market strategy. This would have sat with the Treasury at the time, and the Treasury simply did not do this work. I pay credit to the current Chancellor, who has picked this point up. We desperately need this strategy. Without that, we will continue to have labour market shortages and all the problems that Members have spoken about.
We also need to strengthen skills. I am afraid it is not good enough for the Government to say, “Let’s just train more fruit pickers.” People do not want to pick fruit; that is a statement of the obvious now. As this is a Government who invest a lot in technology, why are they not giving farmers capital allowances to help them bring in technology to pick fruit and vegetables, in the way that many of our competitors do?
I will quickly touch on illegal migration. It is right that we increase the fairness and efficiency of our system, so that we can better protect and support those in need of asylum, while also deterring illegal entry into our country. We need to break the business model of the people smugglers. The Government are seeking to do that, and it is hard work. There is no one single solution, but I am worried that the Government may be overpromising. They say, “We’ll just stop the boats,” when clearly, we cannot just stop the boats. There are so many other things that need to be done, such as offshore processing, bringing the Rwanda scheme to light, life sentences for people smugglers and making it harder for migrants to make these dangerous crossings. We must also stop the repeat and endless last-minute claims that go through our courts and the appeals system in particular. The “New Plan for Immigration” tried to do a lot of that, and I hope the Government will continue to pursue those policies.
In the time I have left, I would like to ask the Minister some specific questions regarding asylum accommodation, which is a very hot topic across many constituencies. We have a crisis in hotels, but at the same time, in Braintree district we have a proposed site to accommodate asylum seekers in Wethersfield. I thank the Minister for speaking to me about this issue last week. I was on a call with the local authorities concerned yesterday, and they are still waiting to find out whether they will receive financial support. The police and the NHS are still waiting for clarification about the funding packages and when they will come. Our councillors are deeply worried about whether they will be held liable for service provision.
There is not enough clarity yet between Clearsprings, the service provider, and local authorities about who will have responsibility for the delivery of not just the site but services. There are areas in Essex already accommodating a large number of refugees—particularly in Chelmsford and Colchester—and asylum seekers. After a short period in Wethersfield site, they will then be dispersed in the community or potentially back into hotels. The Minister has spent some time with me on this issue, and I wonder if he could update me on it.
To conclude, these are difficult matters to address. There will never be a single solution to this, but it is important that we constantly in this House find the right kind of solutions and discuss these issues in a sensible and pragmatic way.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I wanted to talk about the challenge posed by legal migration, but there is not much time. Therefore, as my constituency is about to be the victim of illegal migration, I must follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in talking about that topic and once again raising the issue of RAF Scampton. I apologise if I am wearying the House on this issue, but unless people groan when you stand up, you are probably not making progress in this place, so I will keep referring to it.
The decision to house 2,000 migrants at RAF Scampton is a perverse decision that makes no sense in terms of public policy. To remind the House, RAF Scampton is an iconic RAF base, the home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows. It is to the RAF what Portsmouth is to the Royal Navy. We had the most exciting scheme ever developed for a former RAF base, with £300 million of investment and really exciting proposals, but the Home Office is now intending to put 2,000 migrants in that base. It wants to take the whole base. There are 800 acres, miles of perimeter fence, a two-mile-long runway and 100 buildings—many of them listed, such as Guy Gibson’s office. We were going to have a heritage centre. I have talked about the past and the rich heritage that could, and does, make RAF Scampton an iconic base, but most excitingly of all—as I said to the Innovation Minister yesterday—we were going to have a spaceport on the runway. We were going to launch rockets into space carrying satellites, so a whole new technology was about to be developed.
Why is the Home Office taking this huge, historic base to house 2,000 migrants? Apparently, it wants three or four decaying airmen’s blocks that could maybe take 300 or 400 people, and a bit of hardstanding. The Home Office must own hardstanding all over the country; why can it not put portacabins up on hardstanding, and not try to stymie £300 million of investment? It would be a reasonable proposal as a starting point if the Home Office said to us, “All right, there are these airmen’s blocks. We will take them and put a fence around them”—of course, we cannot lock people up under the refugee convention, but they could go to their own entrance and take a bus to Lincoln, where they could access health, education, sport and all the rest of it—“and we will release the rest of the site to West Lindsey District Council.” It has not even offered us that.
It gets worse. This is something that I have not yet said in the House, which I think is really bad: this is not an isolated site in the middle of the countryside. It is just five miles from Lincoln. There are 1,000 people who live cheek by jowl next to the RAF base in the former married quarters. Some of those people—maybe 100 of them—are still serving RAF personnel. What is really bad is that there has been a total lack of communication between the Government and those private citizens who live in the married quarters, who have bought their own home and put their life savings into those houses, but there has been regular communication with the Ministry of Defence personnel.
Only two or three weeks ago, there was a so-called secret meeting at the village hall on the site, with two military policemen outside, at which the MOD personnel employed by the RAF were told that because migrants were now going to be placed next to them, they would be moved at public expense. That offer has not been made to the ordinary people who have bought their house. The Minister will say, “I am not responsible for the MOD”, but we have collective responsibility. How can the Government say that it is so shocking that their own people, who they employ, should live next to a migrant camp that they are prepared to move them at public expense?
The buildings that we are talking about are old—some of them were put up in the war. They are not built to a modern standard, they may be riddled with asbestos, and there has been contamination by fuel. The Government say, “The fact that we are going to put them in an RAF base is a deterrent”, but I can tell them that if a person is desperate—if they come from the likes of Syria, Somalia or Iraq—they are not going to be deterred from coming to the United Kingdom because they will be put up in a warm room in RAF Scampton, rather than a hotel in Skegness. Skegness is very bracing; it might actually be warmer in RAF Scampton. The thought that we are going to deter people just by taking over an RAF base simply does not make sense.
There is such a lack of communication with the local authority, too. We have asked for risk assessments, but they have been denied us. We have asked for an assessment of the risk of asbestos and that has been denied us.
If the Illegal Migration Bill goes through—I warmly support it; it is the only hope that we can deter people because they know they will be detained and offshored—people will come to Manston. Apparently, they will then be immediately sent to RAF Scampton. By definition at that stage, if the Bill becomes law, they will be illegal migrants, but they will be in RAF Scampton. The Government tell us that there are no plans to make RAF Scampton a detention centre, so those people will be able to walk out the front door, take the shuttle bus to Lincoln, take the train to London and vanish. We have no ID cards. We will never find them. What is the logic of all this? It simply does not make sense.
We should have joined-up government. We are supposed to believe in innovation. Why are we stopping a fantastic piece of innovation to launch satellites into space? We are supposed to believe in levelling up, so why are we destroying £300 million-worth of levelling up? We are supposed to have a coherent policy on migration. Putting as many as 2,000 migrants in one place is not a good idea. By the way, it is not supported by local people, the local authority or the Refugee Council. It is bad for their stability and welfare to have 2,000 migrants in one place. For all those reasons, I very much hope the Minister will think again.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for leading this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I welcome the opportunity to put a few points on the record. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my case load tells a sorry tale about the UK Government’s approach to migration. The volume is something to behold and it is because of their approach. Today alone, I am pulling my hair out because of someone in vain trying to help their elderly mother who has had to flee Sudan. The UK Government do not seem to be interested. I also have a wee baby stuck in Pakistan and again the UK Government do not seem to be interested. I feel often like I am banging my head off a brick wall when trying to help people who deserve the UK Government’s help. If the Minister can stop flicking through his paperwork, perhaps he will indicate whether he feels able to help with either of those thorny cases.
Kirsten Oswald
The Minister shakes his head. What a shameful way to behave. I am trying to assist people in grave need and this says everything about the UK Government’s approach to migration. It should not be like this, Minister. Migration and migrants can bring a positive benefit to our communities and people who are in the gravest peril deserve a good deal more support and respect. It is not just me and the Scottish National party saying that. Opinium polled a large number of UK adults on the Illegal Migration Bill and the people it spoke to felt that the way people seeking asylum are described in political debate is “overly negative”. I thought that was interesting because that is not what someone would believe if they stood in the Chamber and listened to the UK Government.
Kirsten Oswald
I am going to continue, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as time is limited. We all see the impact of migration policies. There are labour shortages and skills shortages, and Scottish need is certainly not taken into account by the UK Government. Whether it is the kind of cases I talked about, floating internment camps, boat pushbacks, deportation flights or the circumventing of international law, the depths that this Government will sink to on migration are frankly depressing. They are hostile in every way. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North put that well.
The Prime Minister has had his say, too. He said:
“If you are coming here illegally, claiming sanctuary from death, torture or persecution”.
That is Orwellian doublespeak because international law determines that, if someone is fleeing death, torture or persecution, they are seeking refuge legally. Nobody is illegal. It is not only confusing in that way. The Home Office’s own logic is not logical. It said:
“Alternative accommodation options”—
that is how it puts things—
“including barges, will save the British taxpayer money.”
But the very same Home Office is set to spend up to £6 billion over two years on detention facilities and ongoing accommodation and removal costs, and Treasury insiders say that the deterrent effect has not been reliably modelled, meaning that the numbers are likely to be wrong and costs much greater. The Refugee Council correctly says that barges are
“entirely unsuitable for the needs”
of those seeking refuge and are a
“direct consequence of the chronic delays and huge backlog in the asylum system”.
Not only that, but a third of the UK’s international aid budget is actually being spent on domestic asylum costs. The system is not working because it is underpinned by policies that are simply wrong.
The Illegal Migration Bill has been widely condemned across civil and political society. A coalition of 176 civil society organisations is calling on the UK Government to immediately withdraw it because it potentially breaches multiple international conventions and agreements. That is on top of the fact that UK family reunion rules are already among the most restrictive in Europe. The Dubs scheme for refugee children was prematurely closed. Brexit—that elephant in the room that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Opposition want to talk about—means that Dublin family reunion applications are no longer possible. My constituents really care about this. I hear a lot from constituents who are deeply worried about why we are not showing compassion for children who seek to come here for sanctuary, and why we are turning our back and turning our face away. I understand their concerns, and I agree with them. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is “profoundly concerned” about the direction of travel, saying that it
“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the UK for people who arrive irregularly, no matter how compelling their claim”.
The chief executive of the Refugee Council is also concerned.
I spoke to the ladies from the VOICES Network whom the British Red Cross hosted here yesterday, and the main thing they want is a safe place to live for women seeking asylum. It does not seem like very much, does it? They are just looking to be treated with a bit of dignity, and the SNP wants to see migrants being given that dignity. We want them to have the right to work and to contribute to the society they call home, but they have no right to work here and no access to social security support in too many cases. The right to work, as article 23 of the universal declaration of human rights tells us, is a fundamental right, not that you would believe that here. People can apply for the right to work only after they have been waiting for more than one year, and even then very few are granted permission. People are essentially banned from working. Not only is that very unfortunate and difficult for them, but it is very unfortunate and difficult for us, as we miss out on the skills and talents that they bring with them.
The UK is an outlier. Other countries do not deal with things this way. Imagine the benefit to our NHS of allowing doctors trained elsewhere to come here and to work to look after the people here who need it. We are also completely opposed to the “no recourse to public funds” policies, which are blocking migrant groups from essential safety nets. Migrants, who are already likely to be vulnerable and in low-paid and insecure work, are therefore disproportionately likely to be at risk of destitution.
Then there are the unaccompanied children. Over 4,000 have been placed in hotels since 2021, and 200 children remain missing. That is shocking; it is inconceivable. The UK Government clearly cannot be trusted as a corporate parent, and the Scottish Government are deeply concerned about this. Scotland does take its responsibilities seriously. The Scottish Government want no part of the UK Government’s “hostile environment” approach to refugees and asylum seekers, or people who are among the most vulnerable in the world—[Laughter.] I do not know why the Minister finds this funny, because I do not think it is funny at all.
Kirsten Oswald
The Scottish Government will do absolutely what is needed for refugees if given the power to allow us to actually do so, and it is high time that the Minister stopped this damaging narrative, which is neither accurate nor fair. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is about conclude. Just let her finish.
Kirsten Oswald
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Rather than more damaging legislation, what we want to see is safe and legal routes for people coming here to seek sanctuary from war and persecution. We need an effective and efficient asylum system and, if that cannot be created here, the powers to do that must be devolved to Scotland so that we can create an asylum system with fairness and dignity at its heart. If we had the powers of a normal independent country, we could of course do that ourselves, and I much look forward to the day when we can.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I will begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) and the hon. Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing this important debate.
There are currently around 220,000 migrants playing a critical role in our NHS. Their contribution is hugely valued, but the question the Government must ask is this: why we are so reliant on migrant workers, largely from developing countries, to prop up our struggling healthcare system? Ghana’s healthcare system is dealing with huge challenges, yet 1,200 nurses left Ghana last year to come to the UK, with 20 nurses leaving a single intensive care unit for Britain in the past six months alone. Why last year did the Government strike a deal with Nepal, a very poor country on the World Health Organisation’s red list for health worker shortages, in order to drain that country of 100 nurses? The answer is clearly that the Conservatives have utterly failed to train our own homegrown talent. Thirteen years of neglect has seen nursing bursaries cut and the budget for further education skills reduced by 12% per pupil since 2010.
Where is the education and training that allows young people to upskill and progress? Why do businesses and public services feel that they have to look abroad when they could be recruiting homegrown talent, or increasing wages to ensure that those jobs pay a better salary that someone can raise a family on? Those are the questions that our constituents are asking.
Labour has a plan to fix the points-based system—a system that we introduced in 2008 for non-EU citizens, but that has since been broken by the Tories. There will be no return to free movement under a Labour Government, only a commitment to get the points-based system fit for purpose for both businesses and workers. That is why we are reviewing the points-based system to consider how we can put responsibilities on employers who recruit from abroad to invest in homegrown talent, and how the Migration Advisory Committee can work more closely with the Skills and Productivity Board to ensure that our immigration system feeds our wider economic aims.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has already announced that Labour will ditch the deeply flawed Government policy that allows businesses on the shortage occupation lists to undercut British workers by paying foreign workers 20% less than the going rate. The Government’s current policy is an insult to British workers, while also causing standards for those migrants who contribute so much to our economy to be diminished. It really is the worst of all worlds. While our system of economic migration is largely connected to our country’s wider economic needs, the asylum system is about our country’s shared international responsibilities and Britain’s role in meeting a challenge that is fast becoming a global crisis. We are living in an age of authoritarian Governments, many of whom, from Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine to the Taliban in Afghanistan and China’s crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, are forcing persecuted and vulnerable people to flee their homelands. Chaos breeds chaos. It is therefore in Britain’s self-interest to work with our allies across Europe and the wider world to provide solutions. Instead, the Illegal Migration Bill, also known as the bigger backlog Bill, will make it harder to fix the system because it prevents the Home Secretary from processing asylum applications. Moreover, it breaks international law, as was confirmed this week by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That will hardly help to facilitate international co-operation, will it?
The Rwanda scheme is an unworkable, unaffordable and unethical sham that, if it ever happens, will only be able to accommodate 1% to 2% of asylum seekers. We have had a failure to replace the returns agreement that we had when we were in the EU before Brexit. A deterrent will only deter if it is credible. These plans are not credible, and therefore the channel crossers keep coming, with 616 on Sunday alone and 8,500 so far this year. Earlier this month the Prime Minister flew on his helicopter to Dover to declare victory, but he needs to learn that an asylum strategy based on the weather is not particularly sustainable.
The Conservatives do not seem to care whether their policies work, and they certainly do not care how much they cost. They have handed the Rwanda Government £140 million for a press release. The cost of the asylum system is four times as high today as it was in 2010, at an eye-watering £2.1 billion per year. Emergency hotels are costing £7 million a day, and an astonishing £1.5 billion since the current Prime Minister assumed his role. The Prime Minister admits that the system is broken, and he should know—his party broke it. Much of this comes down to the backlog on asylum decision making, and a process that has been butchered by 13 years of Conservative incompetence. The failure to process asylum applications was initially caused by the Conservatives downgrading Home Office decision makers from higher executive officer to entry-level roles, leading to worse decisions that were often overturned on appeal, and a staff turnover rate of a whopping 46% last year. Astonishingly, the Home Secretary admitted to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that she has no idea how many asylum caseworkers the Department employs.
The human and financial costs of the chaos are plain. Asylum seekers are stuck in limbo, unable to work as their mental health deteriorates while the British taxpayer is picking up the bill. It really is the worst of all worlds. Labour is clear: it is critical that these dangerous small boat crossings are stopped, because we cannot have people risking their lives in this way while the people smugglers are making millions by trading in human misery. We must clear the backlog quickly and securely, and we have a five-point plan to do it. We would: scrap Rwanda and plough the money into an elite unit in the National Crime Agency; negotiate an agreement with France and the EU to return asylum seekers in exchange for a strictly capped offer for resettling genuine refugees; get the backlog sorted by having triage for high grant rate and low grant rate countries; get the safe and legal routes such as those for Afghanistan working, because the Afghan scheme is completely broken; and get our international aid programme working much more in collaboration with what is happening in terms of the Home Office and countries that generate large numbers of asylum seekers.
The reality is that every single measure that Conservative Ministers have announced on asylum has turned out to be an expensive and unworkable headline-chasing gimmick. When it comes to net migration, the figure is clearly unsustainable, and yet the Government have no plan to get the number down. The root cause of the problem is that they are not taking responsibility. They blame their predecessors, they blame the Opposition, they blame the civil service, they blame the lawyers, they blame the judges and they blame the European Union—they even blame the football pundits. They also fudge the asylum statistics and fudge the cost of their legislation. They refuse to produce impact assessments. They even fudge their pledges when they realise that they cannot meet their targets. That is no way to run a country and it is no way to run the asylum system. We need to get this Government out of the way so that we can have a Labour Government who will stand up, take responsibility and fix the system, and we need that right now.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I join hon. Members across the House in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the Father of the House, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this general debate on migration. By the standards of immigration debates, it has been a thoughtful and reflective one. I plan to use the short time I have to answer directly as many of the questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members as possible.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton opened the debate with an understandable message that the UK should be a country in which those people genuinely seeking sanctuary can find safety and a new life, and we should be looking to continue to develop safe and legal routes. The Government share in that, and we believe that we have done that in recent years. Since 2015, almost 550,000 people have come to the United Kingdom on humanitarian grounds, which is more than in any comparable period in our modern history. They have come on individual country schemes, including those mentioned by many colleagues, from Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong, and indeed on the global scheme operated on behalf of the United Kingdom by the United Nations. A small number have also come on the community sponsorship scheme, which enables any one of us, our communities or faith organisations to assist people directly in moving from places of danger to a new life in the UK. The Government strongly encourage others to take part in that if they care deeply about these issues.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton raised visa costs. I appreciate that, in particular for those people who have lived in the UK for many years and want now to settle here permanently, as well as for those who have settlement but want to obtain British citizenship. The Government believe that citizenship is important and something that everyone who lives here for a sustained period of time should aspire to. I appreciate that the costs of some of those routes are high, and we take that into account, but we have to balance that against the cost of managing the broader immigration system. It is right that the system should be as self-sustaining as possible, so that it places as low a burden as can be on the wider UK taxpayer. We have made concessions for certain types of visa. He mentioned the health and social care visa. Almost 100,000 were granted in the year ending March 2023. That visa carries a reduced fee and an expedited service for good reason.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the UKVI and its service standards. As I have said in the House on recent occasions, the UKVI is well run. It is important, as a Home Office Minister, to give credit where it is due. Not all things work well, but where they do and where the leadership is performing a strong service, it is right we recognise that. The UKVI is meeting its service standards in all regards, according to the last data I saw. It does have service standards, whether published or internal, for every type of visa or application and it is meeting those requirements.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about labour shortages, we take them very seriously. We have to be pragmatic as a Government to ensure that business has the workers necessary to drive forward the economy. We have to recognise that net migration last year of 606,000, which included about 300,000 work visas, is very high by historic standards. That means many, many people are coming into the country for work purposes, the system is working and businesses can access that labour, but we have to balance their need for labour against shortages of housing, access to public services, in particular in the health service, and the ability of this country, like any, to integrate people successfully and to build a cohesive and united society. I am concerned that the current levels of net migration are too high and are not sustainable in the long term.
I also do not believe that it is a way to drive long-term prosperity and productivity by allowing companies, in some instances, to reach for the easy lever of foreign labour. Instead, they should be reaching for technology and automation, and above all investing in local people in the British workforce to help them into the labour market in the first instance. Those are the principles underlying the points-based system that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the former Home Secretary, established, which allows for a degree of pragmatism through the shortage occupation list and other bespoke visa routes, such as the health and social care visa. They give us, for the first time in our modern history, the ability to make changes where necessary.
One of those changes is the change to student visas, which we announced last month. That now enables us to take action against dependants coming with students who are here on short courses, such as one-year master’s. I think that is the right decision because universities, although undoubtedly an incredible force for good here in the UK and around the world, should be primarily in the education business and not the immigration business, enabling a back route to life in the UK for individuals and their families. That is what we want to refocus the system on.
The hon. Gentleman raised, as did many others, the issue of the backlog. Let me be perfectly clear that one of the priorities for the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and me, since we came into office last year, has been reducing the backlog. To develop an efficient system, it is important to reduce the reliance on hotels, which we all agree is inappropriate, and to enable people who will ultimately be granted status the ability to get on with their lives and contribute to society here in the UK. I am confident we will be able to eliminate the legacy backlog over the course of this year. We put in place a number of further measures recently, some of which have been referenced today. We have also brought into play more resources, drawing not just on caseworkers—a growing pool of individuals in the Home Office thanks to our recruitment efforts—but on skilled workers from within the UK visa service and within the Passport Office as well, to bolster those efforts and give us a greater prospect of achieving our ultimate aim of reducing the backlog.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly spoke of the international context underlying the present situation. It was for that reason that I have been to France, Italy, Tunisia and Algeria in the last few weeks—to work with partner countries together on our shared challenge and so that UK assets, such as the National Crime Agency, Border Force and the police, can work with those countries further upstream. They will help them stop migrants from leaving transit countries such as those in north Africa and getting anywhere near the UK. That is an incredibly important part of our broader plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was right to raise the question of France. It is a significant achievement in the past six months that the relationship with France has improved significantly. That has led to more interception rates and more arrests, but there is more work to be done there in our relationship with the French. We have signed other agreements with Albania and Georgia, and a memorandum with Italy. We are working with the EU to develop a partnership with respect to Frontex. I am sure that there will be other opportunities with partner countries both within Europe and beyond. That is something I personally want to take forward to deepen those relationships.
Having spoken to my opposite numbers from a range of countries in the past two weeks, it is clear that we are all grappling with a very substantial challenge. The UK is not alone and is not considered an outlier. In fact, many of the steps that we are taking, including the Rwanda policy, are attracting great interest from other countries. If it is operationalised, it is likely that other countries will seek to pursue something similar. We want to work as closely as possible with other countries to tackle this challenge together.
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and others made about our ODA budget, it is incredibly important that we tackle illegal migration precisely because it is a very poor use of our resources. We are spending a great deal of money on things such as hotels, primarily to assist young men who have been in a place of safety such as France to come to the United Kingdom to continue their lives here. Those resources could be used far better upstream to support people in and around conflict zones, whether through international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees or otherwise. By tackling illegal migration, such as through the Illegal Migration Bill, we can help the United Kingdom to be a greater force for good in the world.
I am conscious that there is little time, but the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) raised concerns about the performance of the Home Office and the manner in which we house asylum seekers. We want to work with the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities so that they can play a greater part in appropriately housing asylum seekers and refugees. We are currently in one such live discussion at the moment, and I very much hope that they will encourage their colleagues in Scotland to assist with those negotiations. I apologise for overrunning my time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Dan Carden
I want to use this final minute to thank my colleagues, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for collaborating on this debate, which was very positive. I thank the Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and the Minister for the replies.
I focused my comments on the costs and barriers to visas and labour shortages, and the backlog in the Home Office. Those issues need to be fixed before we can move forward to consider what a positive migration system can look like in future now that we are in control of our own borders. We should promote the virtues of migration, as many speakers today did, and the contribution that people can make to this country. Finally, the grave challenges that we face, which require international co-operation, are to do with poverty, climate and conflict, and the UK’s role to support people around the world on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policies on migration.