Non-EU Citizens: Income Threshold

Debate between Patrick Grady and Martin Docherty-Hughes

Monday 7th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate under the Petitions Committee system. I tried to squeeze into the debate on the Women Against State Pension Inequality petition, but I arrived about two minutes too late to get a seat, so I ended up sitting in what I believe is grandly called the “Press Gallery”—that little bench over at the side of the room—much to the chagrin of some members of the press. However, the fact that the Petitions Committee allows such debates to be triggered is a welcome development in this Parliament.

I note from the information provided by the Committee that 551 of my constituents have signed this petition—the 32nd highest number in the country—out of the 102,748 people who had signed the petition when I checked earlier this afternoon. I noticed that some of the constituencies with the highest number of signatories were held by Labour Members, so it is rather disappointing to see the paucity of Back Benchers from what is supposed to be the official Opposition party at such an important debate.

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) noted that there had been a variety of immigration-based petitions, some of them pro-immigration and some less keen on various aspects of immigration. That demonstrates a disconnect across the country on the issues. There is certainly not any consensus behind the Government’s position, which seems to me to be driven by ideology and an obsession with the net migration target. It does not reflect any kind of consensus among the population at large, and certainly not among political parties or the different regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

We in the Scottish National party recognise that effective immigration controls are important, but the £35,000 threshold that we are discussing is just another poorly thought out, unfair immigration policy from the Government. I want briefly to look at the principles behind the policy and the complexity of it, and I will raise a couple of specific concerns and the need for a fairer approach.

As I said, it is pretty clear to SNP Members that the UK Government’s immigration policy comes from a certain kind of ideology and a determination to pander to some of the more unpleasant elements of the support for the Conservative party and some other parties. The 100,000 net migration target does not seem to be based on any needs analysis of what might be good for this society’s economy. Rather, it is a nice round number that sounds quite big, and the Government hope that it will placate certain Back Benchers and UK Independence party voters. Incidentally, and interestingly, UKIP voters seem to be concentrated in constituencies that do not have much immigration or many asylum seekers.

The effect of the target has been a whole series of unintended consequences and ever more tortuous mechanisms to try to reach the target, focusing on smaller and smaller sub-groups of immigrants. That is having a disproportionate impact on the economy, society, communities and, most importantly, the lives of individuals.

Despite all that, there have been reports that net migration is beginning to fall, even if, at 323,000, it is much higher than the Government’s arbitrary target. Such an arbitrary target is almost impossible to reach, because so many factors that affect it are outwith the Government’s control. For a start, they cannot change the number of UK citizens who, rightly and legitimately, might want to leave the United Kingdom to live and work in other parts of the world, whether in the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said, or in other parts of the world. Nowhere in UK policy does there seem to be any consideration of how other countries might react to people from this part of the world who want to leave to work overseas.

That brings me to some of the failings of the proposal. A disappointing lack of parliamentary scrutiny has preceded its introduction, as is true of many aspects of immigration reform. This debate should be the beginning of a scrutiny process rather than, as is more likely, the end, after which the reforms will be introduced. As far as I am aware, there has never been a vote in the House on the matter, nor is there likely to be one.

Our approach is at odds with that of many other countries that are trying to attract and retain expertise and skilled workers. In 2011, the Institute for Public Policy Research said in response to the original proposal:

“It is significant that no other major country is moving in this direction. Indeed, countries whose skilled migration policies are widely praised, such as Canada or New Zealand, are taking precisely the opposite approach: they may be fairly selective about who is allowed to enter, but they assume that those who do enter will settle, and have integration policies designed to make that work.”

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that one reason why Canada and other nations are going in the opposite direction is the ageing population in the northern hemisphere and the limitations on the ability to deal with it?

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. An ageing population and a declining birth rate have disproportionately affected Scotland and various regions of the United Kingdom. That goes back to my point about immigration policy being designed to placate voters and political parties in parts of the country that do not have such a situation.

Bodies in a number of sectors have expressed a wide range of concerns about the policy. The Government have responded to some extent to the concerns expressed by the Royal College of Nursing and others about the impact on the health service, but my understanding is that the proposal to put nursing into a skills shortage category will be temporary, with no guarantees about what might happen in future.

We have heard about the impact on other sectors that rely on special skills but do not necessarily pay above the £35,000 threshold. My background is in the international development charitable sector. People come to that sector with a whole range of skills and experiences, but £35,000 is a pretty high salary in such a field.

We have heard quite a bit about the catering industry. I was reminded of a video that was doing the rounds on social media at the weekend: the famous Rowan Atkinson sketch from the 1980s in which he speaks as a Conservative politician saying, “Well, you know, we welcome these people from different parts of the world, and they brought us exotic cuisine such as curry, but now that we’ve learnt the recipe, there is no real need for any more of them.” That was supposed to be satire, yet here we are hearing exactly that sort of sentiment expressed by today’s Tory Government.

I have just come from the all-party group on music’s live music briefing. Our creative sectors benefit hugely from people being able to come into the country to share their expertise, drawing on our rich cultural heritage and bringing their own. Again, £35,000 is a significant salary in those sectors, especially in the early years of work. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) made a point about churn in such sectors. As a result of the policy, people might come for five or six years and then have to leave, only to try to come back 12 or 18 months down the line.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Patrick Grady and Martin Docherty-Hughes

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Martin John Docherty]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He need not worry, because I will get there.

Let us return to the hope of many Members of this House—a hope that is shared, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who cannot be here today—that any future reform of the upper Chamber should not only consider its size, but limit it and remove with haste its ability, as an unelected and unaccountable Chamber, to generate legislation. That is an affront to my constituents and an aberration at the heart of the British political system.

Only a few months ago the Government were keen to play down any reform agenda. Their latest antics have the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) as Citizen Camembert rather than Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Prime Minister playing the good cop and leading man as the Black Fingernail. This is indeed a farce, if not a “Carry On”.

While many Members across this Chamber would seek a long-term resolution of the undeniable illegitimacy of the upper Chamber in its present form, the Government tinker at the edges with the Strathclyde review, a botch job done in jig time for Christmas. Although the review offers a way forward, it seems to confuse the role of the House of Lords. Is it to be a mere stamper of Government policy, or is it a revising Chamber that tackles the Government on the tough subjects of the day? Critically, all options would offer an additional burden on the workings of this House and highlight the behemoth that is the Palace of Westminster. If the report were at least linked in some way or form to improvements in working practices such as electronic voting, which would allow us in this place to deliberate more robustly, in more depth, and with reduced recourse to statutory instruments, it would have been a slightly more useful document. For the record, however, I wish to commend Lord Strathclyde and all those involved for seeking to overcome the Government’s obstacles.

While the report is welcome, it highlights the Dickensian, if not medieval, machinations and dubious working practices of this Parliament. It accidentally shows the Alice in Wonderland antics of the so-called liberal democratic practices of the mother of Parliaments. If the review was worth the paper it was written on, it would be my hope, and that of my hon. Friends, that it would seek to uphold the nature of our polyarchy and at least promote its first pillar, namely that control over Government decisions about policy should at all times constitutionally be invested in elected officials—Members of this House elected by their constituents, from whom they derive their political mandate.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and apologise for being unable to stay for the whole thing. He speaks about the legislative powers of Members of the House of Lords. Does he agree that even more pernicious and insidious is the soft power that is held by unelected Members? They can spend much time in all-party groups, have access to Ministers behind the scenes and all the other trappings that are not visible or even open to scrutiny through live coverage of the Chamber because they happen behind the scenes.

[Martin John Docherty]

I could not agree more. The way that operates within this Parliament is pernicious.

Sadly, I believe that in this Parliament, at least, the aspiration and will for change are a lost cause, given that in the previous Parliament alone the Prime Minister appointed 200 new unelected, unaccountable members of the peerage, and a further 45 in the short period in which my hon. Friends and I have been returned to this House. Appointees covering the great and the so-called good include, of course, large-scale donors to political parties and former bigwigs of county halls the length and breadth of the country.

Of the peerage, let me turn specifically to a certain cadre—the archbishops and bishops of the established Church of England. While much has been made of likening their position to that of the theocrats of the Islamic Republic of Iran, my direct challenge to them is this: they have no place in debating—or voting on, should it occur—the civic or religious life of Scotland. I draw Members’ attention to early-day motion 952, submitted by my own hand and signed by many of my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies, which calls on the Lords Spiritual to desist in their well documented, historical interference in the affairs of the community of Scotland since the times of our late and noble King David. Their interference must end if this Parliament is truly to reflect the broad kirk of representation and communities of this political state.

Let us turn our gaze on the other members of the peerage of the realm. Yes, I will admit, through gritted teeth, that within their ermine-clad utopia there are a few souls who work hard. Yet, as exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire in a debate in Westminster Hall only a year ago, we can see the limited work of so many who stipulate that their position is to stand for Scotland in the upper Chamber. The peerage has no constituency—we all recognise that—and yet they purport in that unelected Chamber to ensure that our constituents’ needs are met. One prime example is those peers who have given attendance and full participation a cursory glance and claim substantial sums of taxpayers’ money for the privilege of access to the Bishops’ Bar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin John Docherty]

I could not disagree with my hon. Friend on that very important matter.

The upper Chamber and its shenanigans reflect more a debauched imperial Roman senate than a functioning democratic parliamentary Chamber, bowing and scraping in a place in which the modern world is seen as an inconvenience. Since my election to this House, I have visited the unelected, unaccountable Lords, where I took my place in the Members of the House of Commons’ balcony—a lofty vantage point across which to view the stoor and the oose of ages. It would seem that their lordships are followers of the Quentin Crisp school of housework. Like him, they firmly believe that after the first four years, the dirt doesnae get any worse. Four years of accumulating dust is nothing compared with the accumulation of centuries of privilege and unaccountability. It must end.

There are those who will see this as nothing other than Celtic hyperventilation against a conspiracy of anomalies, arrogance, absurdity, vanity and venality that poses as a pillar of the mother of Parliaments—and they may be right.

[Patrick Grady]

It is not simply a matter of vanity. In 2005, as I am sure Members are aware, the Scottish National party had a democratic vote at its conference never to accept seats in the House of Lords, confirming a convention that had been in place since the 1970s. At no point in the party’s history has it ever considered taking a position in the unelected Chamber.

[Martin John Docherty]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. For as long as I am the Member for West Dunbartonshire and a member of the Scottish National party, that is what I will be sticking to—saying no to seats in the unelected, unaccountable House of Lords.