Work-based Immigration
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee. Dame Karen Bradley will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members may ask questions on the subject of the statement. Those should be brief questions, not full speeches.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight the Home Affairs Committee’s new inquiry on work-based immigration and to explain the innovative approach we have used with this inquiry. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this statement. I know that the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was staying just for that thank you; he is welcome to leave now. [Laughter.]
When I was elected Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, one of the things I talked about was wanting to have a more informed and considered debate on immigration that recognises the distinction between legal migration—visas for work, family, study and humanitarian purposes—and irregular migration, which primarily means small boats nowadays, where the numbers are much lower but the attention much higher. We want a debate that digs into the reasons why net migration numbers have followed the path they have and how reducing those numbers, which is the stated aim of successive Governments, can be achieved in a fair way that serves our economic and national interests.
To do that, the Committee decided to commission a series of deliberative workshops. Instead of relying on opinion polls or surveys, which can only give a snapshot of views, we partnered with the think-tank Demos to design and deliver a rigorous deliberative process, and I thank the Liaison Committee for supporting us financially. This process is one where ordinary people, selected to reflect the make-up of the local population, learn about the issue, discuss it with one another, and work towards agreeing conclusions.
We chose work-based immigration as the focus of these workshops because it is an area of ongoing contention, the policy is constantly under review and therefore open to influence, and, importantly, the Government have effective levers to determine who is allowed to come to the UK on a work visa. So that people could better understand the complexities and the trade-offs in policy making, we wanted to hear from people in different parts of the country. We chose North Tyneside, Leicester and Renfrewshire. We wanted to share with them the kind of conversations that go on within Whitehall.
We know these questions are hard to resolve. I have been a Minister in the Home Office, and I know that it is hard—I sympathise with the challenges faced by the current Minister, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). Earlier this month, the Home Secretary revealed that she gets almost weekly requests from other Ministers to provide visas for foreign workers in different sectors. This is at the heart of the issue: the extent to which we want to rely upon migrant labour and skills, and the weighing up of the economic and social factors that influence the decision.
The report produced by Demos on the results of the workshops was published on 7 September, and it is available in the Vote Office. I hope it will be of interest to hon. and right hon. Members and to other Select Committees whose remit includes areas affected by immigration.
Between them, the 89 participants at the three workshops produced a list of 13 principles that they thought should underpin policy on work-based immigration and ranked them. It was striking that the No. 1 priority at all three workshops, in three totally different parts of the country, was that the Government should focus on training, upskilling and employment opportunities for UK residents, especially young people, before relying on migrant labour. The second-highest ranked principle was the need to ensure that local infrastructure can support migrants and existing residents. The third and fourth principles were the need for better workforce planning and for migrant workers to be protected from abuse by employers.
The fifth principle was about promoting an honest and balanced public conversation about immigration. That was our intention when we started this work, and I am pleased that the members of the public who participated at our workshops agreed with that aim. It is now up to us, in this House, to help promote that honest conversation. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now joined us in calling for an honest discussion on this subject, although freedom of movement was not a question on the table when we started this work.
We are also reliant on the media to move away from the soundbites, simplistic characterisations, misleading memes and social media disinformation that only serve to polarise and infantilise. While there was more support for restricting numbers of low-skilled migrant workers than higher skilled, there was also some support for restricting neither. Similarly, there were differing views on whether we should prioritise short or long-term work visas. The most common view was that we need both, but the discussions revealed interesting nuances. For example, participants who prioritised greater integration found themselves arguing for longer-term work visas, which was not necessarily their starting position. They saw how policy design can have wider impacts and considered the interaction between competing objectives in reaching conclusions. That is the value of this deliberative approach.
When we received the report on the results of the workshops, we considered how best to use the conclusions to inform our future work on immigration. At the launch event for the report in Portcullis House on 7 September, I announced our intention to hold an inquiry based on the principles identified through the workshops. Our inquiry will focus on the top principle agreed in the workshops: to focus on training, upskilling and employment opportunities for UK residents, especially young people, before relying on migrant labour. We announced the full terms of reference on 15 September. These outlined the detailed questions that need to be answered in order to deliver an outcome that respects that principle.
The Government have undertaken to link their immigration policy to skills. We will scrutinise how they propose to do that. We will also examine the role that migration does and should play in responding to labour shortages, and how that can be more firmly linked to skills. We will look at the Home Office’s approach to managing the skilled worker visa, and how that links to wider skills policy. We plan to scrutinise the Labour Market Evidence Group—the agencies that advise on work-based migration policy—and test how the different objectives of different Departments are managed and how judgments relating to shortages and skill levels are made. We also plan to hear the views and voice of the public throughout our evidence sessions—both through the evidence we gather and from what we learned from the workshops.
Artificial intelligence is affecting pretty much every aspect of life and will continue to do so. Consultations are no exception. Most of our inquires attract large volumes of written evidence. We value that evidence and draw heavily on it to inform our thinking, conclusions and recommendations. We depend on it to do our work, but there are signs now—I am sure that colleagues are seeing this in their constituency correspondence and in other Committees—that AI is increasingly being used to generate lengthy submissions that do not necessarily add anything new to the evidence base. There are resources implications for handling large volumes of written evidence, and questions around its value.
Work is going on among Select Committees to look at how we can secure high-quality contributions to our inquiries: the experiences from those at the sharp end of policies and, when warranted, the considered views of an informed cross-section of the public. There are of course resource implications here as well, but I hope that the Liaison Committee might consider how best we allocate resources to best support our scrutiny of difficult policy issues in the age of artificial intelligence.
Those of us who observed the workshops and spoke to the participants learned that, even on a subject as sensitive and divisive as immigration, people are capable of having a reasoned, respectful and constructive conversation. Not only that, but they obviously valued the opportunity to engage with each other—different communities that do not always mix—and with the political process, in a meaningful way. They valued being listened to, and at the end, their views on our political process were more positive.
I look forward to returning to the House with the conclusions of the inquiry, and the Government response to it, in due course. In the meantime, I am happy to respond to any questions.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
As someone who served on the Home Affairs Committee for two years, I pay tribute to the Chair and the other members, who I can see around the Chamber. I am a partisan person, and I enjoy a partisan political fight, but in a Select Committee one works with people from other parties to get into the weeds of complex and difficult issues. I found that to be a rewarding experience that brings a lot to democracy, so I pay tribute to the members of the Committee.
The statement and report are important, because although immigration is one of the most divisive political issues, the report shows us that the public are nothing like as polarised as we would think. I attended the deliberation in Renfrewshire with the Committee, and on immigration the public are willing to engage with the trade-offs and find common ground between different positions. There is rarely someone who is 100% pro-migration or 100% anti-migration; they are much more open to persuasion.
Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the report shows economic migration is a tool of economic policy, but that we struggle to talk about it because it is occluded by discussions on the small boats? Does she agree that the public are willing to engage with complexity and the trade-offs involved, and that they are far more thoughtful and engaged than social media and the press would have us think?
Dame Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman—who I will call my hon. Friend—will be very much missed on the Committee. He is officially discharged this evening, along with the Minister, and it is a sad day for the Committee to lose his expertise. All of us who attended the workshops found that the conversations became sophisticated. People started off with polarised positions and opinions—they spent a day and a half together, hearing from experts and talking about the issues, and each of the workshops made 10 recommendations, which could be distilled into 13 recommendations in total—but from some very different places we finished with remarkably similar recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is right that the level of conversation and debate was heartening to hear and showed that those conversations can happen in an adult way.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Lady and her Committee for the report. She will be aware that many agricultural sectors rely heavily on migrant labour, and that the Home Office is telling us that we need to upskill our own workforce to take the place of those workers. I draw to her attention the situation concerning foreign sheepshearers, who come to this country for a short period of time—three to four months every year. They come here, they shear the largest flocks—we reckon they do an excess of a million sheep in that short period of time—and then they move on and shear in other parts of the world. They take a number of our local shearers with them, which is a great opportunity for young people from farming communities. Nobody is going to train to the level that those people need to operate for work that is only going to last three or four months of the year. Can I encourage the right hon. Lady to bring some pressure to bear on the Home Office to take a more realistic view on the position of sheepshearers?
Dame Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point eloquently. There are many skills that we simply do not train people in. Welding is another example: the pay is so good, why would anyone teach it on a much lower salary when they could be a welder themselves? That is why we have the problem with training welders in this country. The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about sheepshearers. As an MP for a rural area, I do not have the sheepshearing problem, but I am sure that issues on dairy will be raised with me.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Committee on this innovative work, as I would expect from the right hon. Lady as Chair, leading that team. What work has she done with the Migration Advisory Committee? It is an important committee that examines jobs that sometimes do not have names yet—certainly, that was an issue in Shoreditch, the tech part of my constituency, a number of years ago.
We move from sheepshearers to high-end chefs: my constituency is the hub of some of the best international cuisine and attracts people from around the world. However, one emerging issue is that it is difficult to get chefs in through immigration rules, even if they have studied in universities in Japan, for example, and worked in high-end restaurants around the world. Will the right hon. Lady consider the work of the Migration Advisory Committee and how it can keep up with those trends?
Dame Karen Bradley
I thank the Chair of the Liaison Committee for her support allowing us to conduct this work. She makes an important point, and I am sure that many of us have enjoyed eating and drinking in the high-end, excellent restaurants in her constituency. We ensured that experts in the areas were involved in the evaluation committee, but it is a point that we will come back to during our work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Committee for her recommendations and for the hard work that the Committee does. When it comes to work-based immigration, has the Committee had the opportunity to look at seasonal visas for those in the fishing sector? The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I have been pushing the Minister for some time to agree seasonal visas for the fishing sector. Previous meetings with Ministers would seem to suggest a way forward. I am ever mindful that this life is about solutions and opportunities. These people do not want to come to live here; they just want to come for a short period of time, earn money and send it home—and go home as well. Has the right hon. Lady had the opportunity to look at that?
Dame Karen Bradley
I would have been disappointed if I had not got the chance to respond to the hon. Member, so I appreciate his question. The Committee has just started work on the inquiry, but I note his comments and I am sure that evidence will be given to us on that issue, of which we will take account.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I also commend the Committee for its deliberative work and the innovative way it is taking evidence on this subject. When the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, did an inquiry into the skilled worker visa scheme, we found that it was particularly problematic for care workers, as a migrant’s right to remain in the UK is dependent on their sponsorship by a particular employer, and where that is revoked workers are often left vulnerable to exploitation. Is it the Select Committee’s intention to take evidence from overseas care workers and care providers as part of its deliberations? Will the Committee also consider the benefits of sector-wide sponsorship for care workers and look at how we can promote careers in care work to young people, in particular those who are not in education, employment or training?
Dame Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady is an esteemed member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I note the comments she has made. In my previous incarnation as Minister for modern slavery, tied employment was always an area where there was concern about potential abuse by the existing employer; as she says, there is also the question of what happens to the individual if their employment ends, as their immigration status makes them more vulnerable to exploitation. We have not yet had a chance to go through all the evidence we have received. We are open to receiving evidence—the inquiry is open, and we would really appreciate having that evidence. We will then make decisions about who we will get in to give oral evidence. I have noted the hon. Lady’s comments.