Illegal Migration Update

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Parliament’s support for our Rwanda plan was made clear with the passage of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That is a statutory scheme to underpin the Rwanda partnership, so the will of Parliament to get on and deliver the policy is clear for all to see. I am confident that we will secure the result that we seek in the Supreme Court when it hears the case in October, and that is the Government’s focus right now, but like my right hon. Friend I do not think we should take anything off the table. If we are truly committed to stopping the boats, we will have to consider all options, including with regard to the European convention on human rights.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

If the Government’s attention is so strongly focused on crossings in the channel, can the Minister explain to me why one of the four Border Force cutters spent so much time this summer tied up at a pier in Orkney? We have a history of people coming in small boats to Orkney, but the Vikings have been quiet for quite a while now. Is that not a curious use of that scarce resource?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am happy to look into that issue, and I am delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman’s Damascene conversion to stopping the boats. I can assure him that the UK has a very robust and efficient operation in the channel. We have been commended by international organisations—including when I spoke to the director general of the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees—for the work that we do to save lives at sea in the channel. I commend the Border Force officers who are part of that. At the end of the day, though, we have to put in place a deterrent if we want to stop people crossing the channel, and that is why we need policies such as Rwanda, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party have vigorously opposed.

Contest: UK Strategy for Countering Terrorism 2023

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Terrorists and those who have malign intent for our nation will exploit all sorts of vulnerabilities, including at the border—that is obvious. That is why the Contest upgrade deals specifically with this issue. We need to further strengthen the UK border as a critical line of defence against terrorism, taking advantage of new immigration tools—detection, targeting and biometric capabilities—to identify and block threats from entering the UK illegally in the first place.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

This is a policy area that throws up some of the most difficult cases ever to be found, so I welcome the Home Secretary’s determination to build political consensus and ensure that we work with our strategic allies. Some of the most difficult cases around counter-terrorism involve UK citizens, especially children who were trafficked by ISIS and are currently in north-east Syria. That is an area where we risk becoming an outlier, because all our allies have repatriated their citizens. It risks causing friction between ourselves and our allies. Indeed, we have our own responsibility, given the fact that these are UK citizens who were trafficked. Is there anything in the strategy that will help to tackle those very difficult cases?

[Suella Braverman]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to this very regrettable feature of modern day counter-terrorism. Paragraph 26 of the Contest strategy states:

“In recent years there has been a small increase in the number of minors investigated and arrested by Counter Terrorism Police. Most adverse activity conducted by minors has occurred online; over half of under-18s convicted of terrorism offences over the past five years were charged with non-violent offences (the collection or dissemination of terrorist publications).”

It is vital that we are cognisant of this emerging threat, and that we have the right resources, services and professionalism in place to mitigate and intercept the threat at source as soon as possible, but it is clear that wherever criminality has occurred there will be a robust response from the appropriate agencies.

Illegal Migration Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I will not give way because I wish to finish promptly, as you would expect me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The great Tory Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said:

“The secret of success is constancy to purpose.”

This Minister and the Home Secretary have been constant in their purpose of controlling our borders. Let us have less sanctimony and more common sense; less self-righteousness and more selfless commitment to the people’s will; less soul-searching and more heartfelt advocacy of the interests of hard-working, law-abiding, decent, patriotic Britons who support this Bill and oppose the Lords amendments.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I regard the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) as a friend in the true sense of the word, but I say that it is a pleasure to follow him this evening—not least because it means that he has stopped talking.

There is a real sense of déjà vu about this debate, and not just because of the proceedings in relation to this Bill. We have heard all these arguments before, almost word for word. Everything that the Minister said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon had been heard in relation to what is now the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—and what progress has been made as a consequence of that? None.

I followed closely your exchange with the shadow Immigration Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the question of the Minister being misleading. I should say that I do not think for one second that the Minister was in any way misleading. I cannot speak for his intention, of course—only he knows about that—but I certainly was not misled. To any reasonable-minded person, it must surely be obvious what the Government are about today.

Public Order

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

Sadly, we see unsurprising tactics from the Labour party. Again, Labour Members seek to distract from their woeful failure to stand up for the law-abiding majority, who want us to take these measures on protesters, and to cover up the fact that they have absolutely no policy to stop the boats. It is disappointing but unsurprising.

These regulations will ensure clarity and consistency in public order legislation in the following ways. First, they clarify that the police may take into account the cumulative impact of simultaneous and repeated protests in a specific area when considering whether there is a risk. Secondly, they permit the police to consider the absolute disruption caused by a protest—in other words, their evaluation may be irrespective of the disruption that is typical in that area. Thirdly, the regulations define the term “community” to include “any group” impacted by a protest, extending beyond those in the immediate area. That definition better reflects the cross-section of the public affected by disruptive protests in cities today. Finally, the regulations align the threshold of “serious disruption” with that in the Public Order Act 2023. This definition, proposed by Lord Hope, the former deputy president of the Supreme Court, is rooted in protest case law. It was debated at length by Parliament and deemed appropriate for use in the Public Order Act 2023. It should now be incorporated into the Public Order Act 1986 to ensure consistency across the statute book.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Suella Braverman]

I will not give way, as I have taken a lot of interventions.

The regulations will make it clear that serious disruption to the life of the community includes

“the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities (including…the making of a journey)”.

These regulations do not create new powers but instead clarify powers that already exist. In support of that, we held targeted engagement with operational leads. The NPCC, the Metropolitan Police Service and the chief constables of the affected forces all welcome further clarity in law. To summarise, these measures ensure that public order legislation is clear, consistent and current.

In conclusion, I will always defend the rights of Just Stop Oil or anyone else to express their views, even to protest—that is free speech, that is the foundation of our democracy. However, its methods are deplorable. That is what millions of people, the law-abiding majority, and this Government believe to be true. These measures are for them—for the people trying to get to work, the people trying to get to a family funeral, the people trying to get to hospital. This Conservative Government are on their side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Because the regulations are extremely unclear and extremely discretionary. [Interruption.] It is not clear at all in the regulations what is “minor” and what is “more than minor”, and neither of those things seem to me to be serious disruption. “More than minor” is not the same as serious disruption.

The regulations also refer to a “community”, which

“in relation to a public procession in England and Wales, means any group of persons that may be affected by the procession, whether or not all or any of those persons live or work in the vicinity of the procession.”

What does “affected” mean? Does that mean people saw it on the TV and they were upset by it? How are they “affected”? Again, that is unclear in the regulations, which will give police officers a huge amount of discretion to carry out the enforcement of this pretty lousy legislation.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) says that we have a common law system whereby common law offences are defined by precedent over many years—sometimes centuries. We are dealing here with a statutory instrument, and statutory instruments are different. That is why in the normal course of things, well-drafted legislation coming before this House has an interpretation section that defines such terms. Can the hon. Lady think of any good reason why we would not have a definitions section in this SI?

[Alison Thewliss]

The right hon. Gentleman’s point is correct, and it seems clear to me that not having a definitions section suits the Government perfectly. It will make it incredibly difficult for any police officer to do their job in these circumstances, which is why the police are perhaps a bit nervous about it.

Liberty points out that the police could consider, for example, that a static assembly outside of a train station by a trade union could result in a more than minor delay to access to public transportation. The police could subsequently impose a condition that the trade union cannot protest outside the train station, even though they are trying to protest against that particular employer. People therefore might be sent a way off somewhere else and have to say, “Instead of standing at Central station, we will go and protest at Glasgow Green.” That is just not logical and would make no sense in Glasgow, just as it makes no sense in this legislation here in Westminster. It is why the House should have nothing to do with this legislation.

I do not want to detain the House unduly, because I know that other Members want to speak, but this legislation is flawed and wrong. The Home Secretary mentioned people taking things into their own hands, but people are doing that because they are egged on by a lot of the rhetoric coming from those on the Government Benches and from the press. I have seen people being hauled out of the way and hit in some of the footage that has been shown, and that is disturbing. This Government suggest that people can protest only in a way that suits them, not in the way that people want to make their voice heard in this democracy.

The only slow walking we should be concerned about in this place is the slow walk on which the Government are taking this House towards a lack of democracy and fascism. Independence is now the only way that Scotland can be assured that our right to protest will be retained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Can I first say something about the process this afternoon? The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) highlighted in his speech the many significant issues that this legislation brings to the House, and there are serious debates to be had about the balance between public protest and individual rights. I am not entirely sure that I buy his thesis that the need for protest ended when we achieved universal suffrage, but taking that as we may for the moment, these are significant and serious issues. That is why this House has evolved, over the centuries, a series of measures by which we are able to scrutinise legislation.

The Home Secretary spoke for only 12 minutes to persuade the House why this legislation was necessary. I cannot decide whether or not I am displeased. I generally like her speeches best when they are finished, so 12 minutes was not mercifully short. However, I think that for issues such as this, we deserve something more.

Some of the interventions we have heard from the Government side of the Chamber have also been quite telling. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has just left his place, said that this was to do with the understanding of the left about protest, as if those who protested were always from the left. I remember that in the early years after I was first elected to this House there were significant protests, causing massive disruption, by those opposed to the Bill to abolish hunting with hounds. I do not think that many of them would welcome being labelled as left-wing, and the view taken by the Conservatives in Parliament at that time was very different from the one we hear from them in government.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman, but I think his memory is playing him false. I also remember the Countryside Alliance protest marches, and I believe they were organised in full co-operation with the police. It was similar with most of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament protests on the other side of the political spectrum. We are talking here about people who act unilaterally to obstruct others from going about their lawful business. The Countryside Alliance did not do that, so far as I recall.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman is actually correct in his recollection but also incomplete, because not all those protests were organised by the Countryside Alliance. I can remember the night when this House debated the Second Reading, and it was impossible for Members of this House to get on to the parliamentary estate because of the violence going on in Parliament Square. So if we are to take a view on the right to protest, that view must apply equally across the board to everybody, of whatever political persuasion, instead of simply, as we seem to be doing today, focusing on one aspect.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) forgets that, when he was a member of the Labour party, he used to blast out very loud music at CND marches down Whitehall—he most probably would have been arrested by now.

[Mr Carmichael]

I doubt that the constable who would arrest the right hon. Gentleman has yet been commissioned, but the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) makes a good and fair point.

My concern is about not just the process but the weakness in the way in which this legislation has been drafted and brought to the House. On the lack of any proper definition of what constitutes “minor”, for example, we should not be leaving these things to the courts. The courts are not there to fill in the gaps that Parliament leaves behind. There may well be a serious body of case law that will define “minor”, but we know now that it is the job of this House to insert that definition and we are not doing it.

I confess that I have been somewhat surprised to hear the enthusiasm of the Democratic Unionists in relation to this legislation. I can only presume that that is because the territorial extent of this legislation is England and Wales only. However, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, it could of course affect anybody who comes from there. We define community not just as people who live or work in a place but also those who would be affected by the process, and I wonder how the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) would feel if hundreds of people, or perhaps several thousand, deciding to walk slowly down a road playing flutes and banging a Lambeg drum were to be covered by such legislation.

[Sammy Wilson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

Of course; I will give way in a few seconds.

Frequency is at the heart of the offence being created here, and as many people resident in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland would tell us, in the month of July such incidences are frequently to be found. I give way with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sammy Wilson]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this House legislated a long time ago to ensure that people who engage in those activities are fully regulated by the law, and the Parades Commission has been set up for some time now, and causes great anxiety at home with some of its rulings. So there is that legislation and Members across this House, including members of his party and the Labour party who are protesting about this legislation now, were quite happy to legislate for the Parades Commission to regulate the Lambeg drummers, the fluters and those who celebrate the glorious 12th in Northern Ireland every year.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think the glorious 12th comes in August actually, but I bow to the expertise of those on the Conservative Benches on such matters.

In fairness, however, the right hon. Gentleman has a reasonable point, and I understand that the legislation to which he refers pertains only to Northern Ireland and that is perhaps why it is not part of this legislation. Essentially, however, as the shadow Home Secretary said in her remarks, this is an area of law that is already well regulated. Very few areas of lacuna remain within the law and this legislation is not in any practical, meaningful way going to fill any difficulties. What would fill difficulties is a better resourced police force that is better able to engage with people and take on board their wish to protest.

[Kit Malthouse]

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that it is not just Northern Ireland that has regulation of protest? He will be aware that in Scotland it is a criminal offence not to notify the police within 28 days of an organised moving protest, and that people may face criminal sanctions if they do not do so. What is the difference between the legislation we are currently discussing and the law under which his constituents operate, where they may go to prison if they do not tell the police about a protest that is coming?

[Mr Carmichael]

I could be wrong because I am hopelessly out of date on so much of this stuff, but I think from memory that the right hon. Gentleman refers to the provisions of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which was brought into force under a previous Government—a Government for whom I had very little time, but in terms of the way in which they went about their business were a model of parliamentary propriety compared with the mince that has been brought to the Chamber this afternoon. This comes back to the point I made about the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich: there are serious issues here to be decided—serious issues about the balance between the rights of the individual to protest and the rights of the community to go about their business—but this is not the way to deal with them.

The shadow Home Secretary made the point that this is an area where there is already extensive legislation. Problems arise not from the lack of legislation but from the lack of the ability to implement properly and with consent the laws we currently have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree.

This SI comes in the wake of our official police watchdog warning that public trust in police is “hanging by a thread”. This is no time to risk increased politicisation of the policing of public order.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has made it clear that it has grave concerns about this measure, advising that

“the measures go beyond what is reasonably necessary to police protest activities.”

Its briefing warns of its concern about incompatibility with the European convention on human rights and of a “chilling effect” on the right to freedom of expression.

Moving on to the style—the way in which this is being done—the Government are trying to do something which has never been done before: they are trying an abuse of process that we must not permit, whatever we think of the content of the SI and the intentions behind it. The restrictions on protest rights that this SI seeks to impose were explicitly rejected by Parliament during the passage of the Public Order Bill—now the Public Order Act 2023—in February 2023. This is the very opposite of the integrity that the current Prime Minister promised when he took over. It is a blatant continuation of the casual disregard for Parliament’s democratic standards that he promised to discontinue.

My Green party colleague in the other place, Baroness Jenny Jones, has tabled a fatal motion to kill off this affront to our rights and our democracy, and it will be before that House tomorrow. Rightly, for primary legislation the unelected House of Lords is a revising Chamber. As Members will know, this is secondary legislation and it needs the approval of both Houses. Presumably, that is to avoid the type of situation we face now, where an SI could be used by the Executive to reverse a Lords revision to primary legislation that they do not like.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because that gets to the heart of the matter as far as the other place is concerned. The Government, in bringing the regulations to the House in this way, are riding roughshod over the conventions of this House. We have a system that relies on checks, balances and conventions, so when our noble Friends in the other place come to consider this legislation, might they also be entitled to say that, with a check having been removed, they are entitled to adjust the balance and pay the same regard to the conventions of their House that the Government have done to the conventions of this House?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for that contribution. He makes a valid and legitimate point, which I had not considered.

The regulations represent a gross Executive overreach. I sincerely hope that the motion is defeated. If it passes because hon. Members choose to allow this twin attack on our right to protest and on parliamentary democracy, I encourage every Member of the other place, whatever they think of the content of the statutory instrument, to vote for Baroness Jones’s fatal motion tomorrow, because to ride roughshod over primary legislation in such a way is a truly dangerous path to tread.

Finally, I want to distance myself entirely from the comments made by Conservative Members about the right to protest. I remind them that when people take peaceful direct action, they are doing so because they have generally been driven to feel that they have no alternative. They feel that the Government are careering over a climate cliff edge and they are trying to get a hold of the wheel. As the UN Secretary-General António Guterres reminded us:

“Climate activists are sometimes depicted as dangerous radicals. But the truly dangerous radicals are the countries that are increasing the production of fossil fuels. Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

I could not agree with him more.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I welcome that intervention.

The regulations put the local police in my area, as well as local protesters and the local communities in both the Hayes and Harlington constituency and the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, in an impossible position. They seem to apply almost perfectly to our local situation. If I go through the various criteria, the first is “cumulative” impact. I am not sure how we judge cumulative. Is that over a limited period of time or a short period of time? We have been protesting there since 1978. Is that cumulative? Does the police officer have to take that into account at the local level, or should he or she set a limited timescale on that?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this again comes to the heart of the process in the legislation we are passing. The proposition from the Government Benches is that it is all right, because the courts will fix out these things. Long before it gets anywhere near a court, it will be a decision for police officers on the street, the borough commander or whomever it will be. Is that fair on police officers?

[John McDonnell]

The history of protest around Heathrow is actually an example of a model relationship between protesters and local police. It has worked very well up to now. We have had some issues. One protester who was with me in the negotiations between the police and the climate camp was, I now discover, a police officer—part of the spycops situation. But what I am saying is that it puts people in an impossible position. What is cumulative?

On absolute disruption, the explanatory memorandum states:

“For example, serious disruption may be caused if a procession or assembly causes a traffic jam in an area where traffic jams are common.”

At certain times of the day in my constituency, I cannot find many streets where there isn’t a traffic jam on the main roads, to be frank. It goes on to talk about the meaning of “community”. Define the term community. Is that just the Heathrow villages, or is it Hayes and Harlington? The protesters came in from Uxbridge as well. It goes on to list the types of facilities where protests will be banned, and it includes “a transport facility”—so, Heathrow airport. The regulations have almost been designed to prevent any form of protest against the third runway. In fact, they are almost perfectly designed to arrest the former right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—perhaps that is what the Conservative party is up to.

I just think that this is one of those pieces of legislation, like the old Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, that is unworkable. It will be back here next year or the year after, but after having put police officers and protesters in a virtually impossible position. The Government need to think again. This is not the way to legislate anyway, without proper due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Well, let us take the Extinction Rebellion protests we had here. Stars were flying in from America to join them. They did not feel any qualms about it. They did not even see the hypocrisy of it. For some protesters, the important thing is that other people should be affected by their concerns—that they should be able to live a lifestyle and engage in actions that have no impact on them but that do have an impact on others. People go out of their way consciously to cause disruption to others and cause anger, frustration and sometimes a detrimental impact. They protest about the quality of air in London and the burning of fuels, and what do they do? They cause traffic jams where people are belching out smoke from the back of their cars and burning petrol. Yet it seems that we should tolerate that. Unfortunately, it has been tolerated. I saw the frustration it caused many commuters. We see it on our television screens time and time again. The Government are, I believe, obliged to do something about it.

There is a certain hypocrisy and inconsistency about some of the arguments we have heard tonight. It has already been referred to that there are those on the Labour Benches who are quite happy to say that someone who glues themselves to a road or causes physical destruction to paintings in an art gallery should be tolerated, but someone who stands outside an abortion clinic and prays should not be tolerated. That kind of inconsistency shows that this is not so much about the methods that the Home Secretary is introducing today, but about who they are targeted at. I think that is the important thing. I was challenged by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about parades in Northern Ireland. This House supported the parades legislation for Northern Ireland, which is quite draconian. In fact, it can ban a parade that may take three minutes to pass a flashpoint, because sometimes people have come from 50 miles away to be offended by it. If they protest, the Parades Commission can make a ruling against the parade. So, we can see an inconsistency in attitudes across the House.

[Mr Carmichael]

The good news, I suppose, for the right hon. Gentleman is that those seeking to stop his walks or marches would not have to travel 50 miles. They would just have to say that they were affected by it, because that is the definition of community.

[Sammy Wilson]

A number of Members have made the point that that leaves interpretation for the police. Has the community been affected? What has been the cumulative effect? Is the protest too noisy? But that is true in every situation where a policeman or policewomen on the ground has to make an operational decision. Do I take this drunk out of the pub, or do I allow him to stay there? Do I talk to him and let him walk away, or do I stick him in the police van? Of course those operational decisions will always be with the police. However, having seen some of the attitudes not just of police officers on the ground, but of some of those in command and in the courts, my worry is that regardless of what legislation we introduce here tonight, the interpretation of what is happening will come down to what the officers or the judges think of the protesters’ case. That is where the real difficulty lies.

As a protester, I do not want to see us living in what one Member has rather exaggeratedly described as a fascist regime. This is not fascism. This is about a Government having to make a decision as to what we do in a democracy to allow people to make their point even if we do not like the point that they are making, and to stop people being impacted by the protest even though the protester has made it quite clear that that is their main aim anyway. Although I am always more sympathetic to protesters than I am to the legislation against them, I think that this measure is necessary tonight and we shall be giving it our support.

Net Migration Figures

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We believe that the measures we announced yesterday with regard to student dependants will have a tangible effect on the number of student dependants coming into the country, which, as the figures published by the Office for National Statistics show, is currently very considerable. It is not right that universities are in some cases in the immigration business rather than the teaching and education one. We are clamping down on those practices and that will help us bring down net migration in the medium term. But let me be abundantly clear to my right hon. Friend: net migration is far too high and we need to take measures to bring it down. We are not complacent; we want to make good on our promise to the British public.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Immigration Minister seems to be making a very good case for increased wage inflation. I wonder what his Treasury colleagues make of the overall impact of that on the economy. Sector after sector, whether agriculture, hospitality, fishing or care services, tell us that they all need access to more skilled staff, and they simply do not have that access at the moment. He stands at the Dispatch Box and talks about adding fishing to the shortage occupation list, but he completely ignores the fact that his and the Home Secretary’s refusal to lower the standard of English language skills required renders that absolutely meaningless for the fishing industry and, as a result of his decision, fishing boats in my constituency and right around the coast are tied up today. When will he start listening to business? When did the Conservative party stop doing that?

[Robert Jenrick]

The case I was making was that we sustainably increase productivity by encouraging our employers to invest in their workforce and in technology, rather than simply by reaching for the easy lever of further international labour. With respect to the fishing sector, this measure that we have made this week has been broadly welcomed by the fishing sector. I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if his contention is that we should allow people who cannot speak or write in English into the United Kingdom on visas that have a route to settlement. That is wrong. The standard of English that we maintain is a low standard, and we need it for health and safety at the workplace, to prevent exploitation and to ensure that people can integrate into our communities. That is absolutely the right approach.

Inshore Industry Fishing Crews: Visas

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered visa arrangements for inshore industry fishing crew.

This is a massive issue for myself and all of us here. We have a deep interest in this subject, and we come once again with a request. As the Minister knows, in January this year I had the opportunity to meet him and discuss this issue. I brought along my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and two reps from the fishing organisations in Northern Ireland, because we had some really deep concerns with where we are going and the importance of where we are about. I will outline the case for fishing and visas.

I thank all hon. Members for being here, and the Minister as well. He will know that when I put forward my case, I always try to do it in a constructive fashion and in a way that tries to get to a solution. I try to make everything I do solution focused and solution based; I know that other Members will try to do the same thing, but I want to make that point to start with.

The fishing industry in Northern Ireland supports about 1,400 jobs. It is the single biggest employer in the communities of Ardglass, Kilkeel and Portavogie, in my constituency of Strangford. I represent the fishermen in Ardglass and Kilkeel, even though they are not my constituents; their MP does not attend here because of the parliamentary oath, so they ask me to be their representative on matters through the fish producer organisations. Each of those communities relies on its fishing industry, and their fishing industry relies on access to Northern Ireland’s inshore waters.

My case will be specific to Northern Ireland, unlike the request that I will make—I will tell the Minister my request. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I spoke this morning, and I think his request will be similar. I also discussed the matter with my friends and colleagues on the Government side before the debate, so I think that we will all ask for the same thing. We are not asking for anything really gigantic, but we are looking for a small, solution-based way forward that we feel may be just what we need to get us over the line.

Why are we in this crisis? Affordable food that is healthy and sustainable is a good thing for all of us. No one has enjoyed seeing the cost of the weekly shop rise, and it is to the benefit of all UK citizens to keep food costs low, but we cannot have everything. If that is to happen, the simple reality we must accept is that it will be harder to entice UK workers into food production. The fishing industry can testify to that, having seen its demographic change towards the increasing employment of foreign workers over the past 30 years.

I have been involved with the fishing sector all my political life, which is quite a long time. I started in 1985 as a councillor, representing the peninsula area where Portavogie is. All that time, my brother was involved in fishing, and many of my friends were as well. Over those 30-odd years, we have seen a greater dependence and reliance on foreign workers.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I anticipate that we will hear the same sort of thing from the Minister that we heard from him in the main Chamber today—namely, that we should be growing local labour. Does the hon. Gentleman hear from his own constituents, as I do, that that labour simply is not there, and that there are reasons why local young people, in particular, are not going into the fishing industry? That is basically because, for decades, they have been told that this is an industry in decline that has no future. We will not turn that perception around overnight when the problem that the boats have is in the here and now.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my friend and colleague for that comment. I agree. I see it in Portavogie, in Ardglass and in Kilkeel. I will give an example: the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation put an advert out—when we were in the EU, by the way—to try to galvanise workers. Some 45 people inquired, five people responded to say that they would be interested in the job, and only one turned up. Whenever they did an advertisement across the whole EU, that was all the interest that there was, so there is an evidential base to prove the case that the right hon. Gentleman refers to.

I see in my constituency that people are not interested. Fishing is a hard job. It is one of the most dangerous jobs: more people are killed in the fishing sector than in many other sectors across the United Kingdom. People are going into other jobs, as it is a hard job. I remember going down into the bowels of one of those fishing boats in Portavogie one day. I said, “And where do you sleep?” The fisherman said, “In that wee place there.” We are born in a foetal position, and that is the way they sleep. It is impossible to know how anybody could ever sleep on a boat that is tossing about in the sea. The point is: it is a hard job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). In his —if I may say so politely—lengthy speech, he has probably covered everything that every one of us will end up asking for. I agree almost 100% with his requests of the Minister and his suggestions for how we can help the fishing sector and turn on their head some of the long-standing and difficult issues for the industry.

Mr Vickers, if you were to come to south Devon—you are of course always welcome—you would be greeted by three extraordinary fishing towns of great variety: Brixham, Salcombe and Dartmouth. Brixham is the most valuable fishing port in England, as we all know— I spend half my time in this place talking about it—but in Dartmouth and Salcombe there is a large contingent of inshore fishermen, whether they are crabbers or day fishermen, who are really impacted by this issue. Indeed, the entire town of Brixham, which I think is now on its third year of record sales—a point that is often overlooked in the mainstream media—is absolutely dependent on visa arrangements. It is my pleasure as their representative to stand up in this place and talk about how we can do more for the fishing sector.

As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, fishing is all too often an afterthought. People do not fully consider the fact that fishing is a massive lever with which we can help to level up in our coastal communities and create good, well-paying, highly skilled jobs that allow our coastal communities to flourish. We need only read Professor Chris Whitty’s report on how to level up in coastal communities to see that there is a huge opportunity for us to do more for our fishing industry, and that starts by changing our attitudes. It also starts by changing our habits; just eating more fish—more seafood—would help us to grow the UK’s domestic market. That is something that a great people in my constituency, such as chef Mitch Tonks, are trying to do. He is leading a campaign to support the fishing sector and to talk about the fishing community and the great sources of food we have on our coastline.

I come back to the point about changing attitudes, because if we want to attract people into the fishing community, that is not going to be done by handing out visas to foreign workers; we have to change the approach. I welcome the Government’s measure as a temporary measure, because I hope that, in the in-between period, we can put more into training.

On visa arrangements, it is absolutely welcome that the Government have reduced the cost of the visas and reduced the salary threshold, but I come to the point the hon. Member for Strangford made about the B1 English language requirement: if we are trying to fill a gap right now because there are not enough workers in the fishing community, how on earth do we hope to achieve that when the B1 language course is so complicated and, in many instances, lengthy?

[Mr Carmichael]

For the sake of argument, let us say that we do manage to train people to the B1 level in order to meet the visa requirements. We have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the hard, difficult and occasionally dangerous work undertaken on a fishing boat. Is it just possible that people who have achieved the B1 standard of English might then want to take that skill and qualification and do a job that is perhaps more suited to somebody with that level of language skill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Vickers. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing time for a debate on this important issue.

I represent Orkney and Shetland. Shetland’s local economy is one third fishing-dependent, and that goes through everything. When I say fishing, I am including aquaculture to get to the one third, although a lot of the skills are transferrable in any event. We have the full range: we have small, one-person, inshore boats, right the way through to the largest pelagic trawlers anywhere in Scotland—apart, obviously, from Banff and Buchan, where there are ones that are just as big. I do not think we want to get into a debate about the relative size of the pelagic trawlers; that is not what we are here for.

I have to say that I am just a bit weary with this. We have been going round this course for at least 10 years —possibly more—and we have gone from patch here to fitch there. We have had a reliance on transit visas, which was—bluntly—an abuse of the transit visas system, but it was the only way that fishing boats could get access to the crew they needed. We can absolutely understand why that happened, but it left a lot of people who were coming here as crew vulnerable to a measure of exploitation, and there were stories around the use of transit visas that did no credit to some in the fishing industry. We need a system that actually respects the rights of those who come here and contribute to our industry, and who keep our coastal and island communities growing and thriving, and that respects the rights and entitlements they have as workers in our economy, rather than just pushing them sidewards into the shadows.

The fishing industry has been promised a great deal by some in politics in recent years. Without rehearsing old arguments, it is fair to say that many in the industry feel that the promises made to them have not been honoured or delivered. It is certainly true beyond any measure of doubt that the deal done in 2020 by the former Prime Minister but one, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), did not meet the promises that had been made; indeed, in terms of much of the detail, it was greatly deficient. The trade and co-operation agreement has not delivered the opportunities that were promised, but the industry is nothing if not pragmatic, and it is working towards the renegotiation of that agreement. In the meantime, it would be nice to think that the people who promised the earth but did not deliver at the time would not just keep sticking the boot in while the industry is on the ground.

[David Duguid]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that the outcome of the TCA did not meet all expectations, but does he agree that our power at the negotiating table as an independent coastal state—this includes Ministers and officials in Scotland who take part in these negotiations—has become stronger and that our catching opportunities have increased? However, if we cannot get the people on the boats to catch the fish or to process them in the processors, that situation could potentially be at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

There are constitutional issues that the hon. Gentleman and I are part of the debate on and have been for some years. In microcosm, the danger the fishing industry faces is thinking that the solution to everything is dependent on where decision making is exercised. Personally, I think it is more important to discuss the principles and policies underpinning decisions, rather than where those decisions are made. A bad decision in Brussels is just as bad as a bad decision in London or Edinburgh—that is probably as far as it is sensible to take that. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that we could have the greatest opportunities and the most magnificent quota and total allowable catches imaginable, but that is absolutely no use if the crew cannot be found to put the boats to sea.

In my constituency and others, and I suspect in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, that is the situation many skippers face. If the local labour were available, I have absolutely no doubt that skippers would use it in a heartbeat. Every fisherman I speak to tells me exactly the same thing. They say they want a thriving local industry, and they do not want to rely on people coming in on foreign visas, but they also live in a competitive market. The fishermen in my constituency are competing for people who could be recruited into the offshore oil and gas industry, aquaculture or the deep-sea merchant marine.

Those fishermen have to compete not just with those industries but with decades of teachers, careers advisers and commentators telling people that the fishing industry has no future, that it is in decline and that no one would want to go into it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the local fleet in Shetland, there are fantastic examples of young skippers taking on big commitments. New boats are coming into the industry, in a genuine and visible commitment to the future of the industry. Those skippers just need a hand up. They are not looking for help—for a subsidy or a grant. They just want to be able to go to sea, to make money to provide for their family and to keep an industry going that is critical to the future of our communities.

The history of this issue bears a bit of repeating. We pushed water up the hill for years with the members of the Migration Advisory Committee. We reasoned with them. Eventually we brought them in and beat them up in a Committee Room in the Palace and they accepted that, yes, the job of a deckhand is a skilled occupation. That is how we made the progress that got us to the place where that job could be put on the shortage occupation list.

That brings us to the English language requirement. The concession that has been made is absolutely meaningless if we insist that the crew who are to be employed under it are capable of achieving that level of English language qualification. As I said to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), people who have that academic ability will probably not be particularly suited to, or want to work in, a fishing boat. For the medium to longer term, it is difficult to see how there is any meaning to that concession whatever. If we were to get the fishing industry to fund training for people to get to that level, I strongly suspect that they would not be there for the longer term. All we would be doing would be training people for jobs that they would not ultimately take up.

At its root, the problem with the English language qualification is a fundamental lack of understanding in the migration system, and in the Home Office in particular, which seems to equate skill with academic ability. That is a particularly dangerous and—dare I say it?—fairly middle-class view of the world. A lot of people have highly skilled occupations, but have never actually achieved a great deal in terms of academic qualifications, because that has not been the direction in which they have wanted to go. I think what they do is perfectly legitimate. I respect what they do, and what fishermen are capable of doing. I sure as goodness would not go and do it, because it is hard, difficult, dangerous work. In the same way that I would hope that they might respect what I can do with my professional background, I respect what they can do with theirs. It does not always come down to what someone has by way of academic qualifications. The hon. Member for Strangford has already said what needs to be done. That tweak is all we really need; the problem for the Minister would then simply go away.

I want to offer two examples of what the situation means for fishing boat crews in my constituency. The first example is a family with two vivier crab boats. Like everyone I will talk about, the family have done everything that every Minister in every Government would ever tell them to do. They have worked hard, they have saved, they have borrowed to invest and they have grown their business to provide for the family. The father tells me that he does the work because he wants to have a business that he can hand on to his eldest son. He tells me, quite candidly, that he no longer knows whether he will be able to do that. He was fishing with fixed gear, within the 12-mile limit, until the day that his ability to do so was withdrawn. The gear is still sitting there, weeks down the line, because he cannot get the crew to go out and shift it.

When the Minister responds, perhaps he can explain this point. The waters to be included around Orkney include uninhabited islands such as Rona, Sulisker and Sule Skerry. That takes in waters that, for an inshore fisherman, are about 90 miles from the Orkney mainland. I presume that it was a deliberate decision on the part of the Minister to include Rona, Sulisker and Sule Skerry, so will he explain his reasoning? It does not make any sense to me. The hon. Member for Strangford spoke about safety. When boats are out fishing, they will often dodge into those areas to get a bit of shelter in bad weather. If fishermen cannot take their boats there because they are fishing outside the 12-mile limit, they will be exposed to even greater danger.

That brings us back to one of the fundamental problems, with which we have been dealing for years: fishermen are forced to fish not where the fishing opportunities exist, but where their visa requirements allow them to. That, again, has to be a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The other example I offer is a Shetland fisherman who bought his boat some years ago. The boat and the quota together cost him around £1.4 million. He still owes the bank just south of £700,000—the figure was about £680,000 when I last spoke to him about it. He has always fished with a foreign crew within the 12-mile limit—well, perhaps not always, but certainly in recent times, because he was able to do so. He did so because, that close into shore, he could be certain that he was only catching haddock. If he has to go outside the 12-mile limit, he will be catching a much more mixed fishery—haddock, cod, ling and saithe. He is not allowed to catch cod, ling and saithe, because he only has quota for haddock. Because of the discard rule, he is also not allowed to get rid of them. That is the vicious circle that leaves fishermen having to tie their boats up at the shore.

The basic truth is that if there is no crew, there is no fishing, and if there is no fishing, there is no ability to service the debt. Fishers will doubtless go out of business, and that income will be lost to the community as those families will no longer be able to make money for themselves. If the boats do not go out to sea, no fish will come into the factories to be processed. In that way, the effect of this decision ripples out through every fishing community in this country.

We are asking for a simple tweak to a fairly small piece of legislation that will not make a massive difference to the number of people coming here. The Minister spoke today about the desirability of offering visas to people who come here on a route that might eventually lead to indefinite leave to remain. He knows as well as I do that if that route is taken, there are other opportunities for the English language requirement to be tested and established.

The people who come here to fish in my constituency are not coming to stay, because their families are still at home in the Philippines or Ghana. They come here to fish for six, eight or 10 months at a time, and then they want to go home. Why would they not? That is where their family are. They come here and make good money working in an industry that looks after them and offers them opportunities. It is good for them and good for us. Why can the Home Office not just get out the way and let them do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Duguid]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. That impacts the owners of smaller boats more than those of bigger ones, because bigger boats have bigger crews. On a bigger boat, if someone does not receive their health certificate, there are other crew members who can fill the gap. With a one or two-man crew, that becomes more of an issue. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.

Let me return to my point about collaboration between the industry, us elected representatives and the Government. We should take as much advantage as possible of that desire to collaborate and act constructively in partnership and dialogue. As I found in my meeting with the Minister earlier in the week, a face-to-face discussion is so much more productive than just the odd email going back and forth.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Member forces me to intervene with his second reference to his meeting with the Minister. I am delighted that he got that meeting. On 20 April, when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) was answering my urgent question, which the Immigration Minister managed to dodge, she said:

“The right hon. Gentleman asks to meet the Home Secretary or the Immigration Minister. I can put that request to the Minister this afternoon, and I hope that it will be agreed.”—[Official Report, 20 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 370.]

It would appear that her hopes were not well founded. What did the hon. Member do to get a meeting that I cannot?

[David Duguid]

I am not sure I want to give away any trade secrets, but, as I am sure the Minister will attest to in his response, a lot of ear-bending was involved—I am sure there has been a lot of that from all of us.

As hon. Members have mentioned, and as the industry and communities themselves recognise, we need to encourage more local people—particularly young people —in our coastal communities to consider a career in fishing. I think it is fair to say—I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes earlier and he agreed, and I am sure the situation is the same in Orkney and Shetland and probably in Strangford—that we are seeing the green shoots of people starting to think about it, but they are doing so in such small numbers. This is a generational issue. It will not happen overnight.

[Mr Carmichael]

As I said, we have young skippers taking on new boats in Shetland. If their experience is not financially favourable as a consequence of decisions like this, what will that do for the green shoots that the hon. Gentleman and I can see at the moment?

[David Duguid]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make that point. Not only is the industry actively taking steps to encourage people into a fishing career, but we have local education facilities such as the North East Scotland College in my constituency—that includes the Scottish Maritime Academy, which people attend from all over Scotland—and efforts by organisations such as the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, to name just a few of the organisations that are actively trying to make this happen. As Members have mentioned, there is so much we can do with automation, particularly in the processing sector, which I will come to later.

In its paper, which was mentioned earlier, the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, in the process of asking for a 24-month period to make all this stuff happen, went as far as to make a commitment on behalf of the industry that within 12 months, up to 100 crew would be operating under a skilled worker visa; within 18 months, for vessels operating some or all of their time within the 12 nautical mile limit, no new crew contracts would be entered under the transit visa route; and within 24 months, all non-UK crew working on vessels operating to an extent within the 12 nautical mile limit would be employed under a skilled worker visa. When I first read that, I thought, “Wow, really?” That is an ambitious target and a huge commitment on behalf of the industry.

As I said, this is a generational issue. Coastal communities around Scotland suffer from depopulation and loss of services—by the way, that is something that the Scottish Government and local councils need to look at, too—and from very low, effectively zero unemployment. The offshore catching sector, as well as those fishing inshore, can apply for the relevant skilled labour through the skilled worker route, but the main stumbling block is the standard required in the written English language test. As others have said, we are not denying that there is a need for a minimum level of English, for health and safety reasons and to avoid exposure to abuse, but the industry has proposed reducing the standard from B1. The hon. Member for Strangford suggested that too, and I have heard requests to reduce the level required to A2.

I went to school with people who went to sea. They left school at the age of 16 and they are now some of the most successful businessmen I know locally. They are very successful, and I have great respect for the work they have done to build up those businesses, but, by virtue of leaving school at 16, they did not achieve the English language test standard we are asking for from our non- native-English-speaking crew members. Many of them have been working on these vessels for many years, but they have not been required to pass the test until now. Again, we are not saying, “Let’s not have English language testing.” The industry is just asking for it to be applied at a sensible and reasonable level.

I heard the response by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, and I think I agree that the English language requirement is reasonable for those coming into the country on a route to settlement. However, I suggest that almost all of the fishermen we are discussing, if not all of them, are not seeking a route to settlement. I ask the Minister whether that might be seen as a means of differentiating these cases from cases where people are actively seeking to settle in this country. As the right hon. Member suggested, it does not seem beyond the wit of man or even Government to apply such a measure, and it would remain consistent with the overall principle that the English language test is a requirement of a visa that could lead to a route to settlement.

If such a move could be made on the English language testing, it would be a game-changer and would help this vital industry and our coastal communities not just to survive but to thrive, as we all know they can. The industry can thrive while maintaining and sustaining our marine environment without the need for hastily imposed and poorly thought out highly protected marine areas, which have been a source of much debate lately. That is perhaps for another debate on another day.

Will the Minister consider the wider seafood production value chains, which have already been mentioned? As I and people in the industry have said, Brexit and becoming an independent coastal state provides a fantastic opportunity to gain more access to catching in our own waters. That is undeniable. As domestic and international markets recover from the covid lockdown, we are seeing demand for our excellent seafood produce grow, both at home and overseas, but the onshore processing side of the sector is experiencing similar issues with access to labour as those we have been discussing today. As well as this week’s announcement, I welcome the previous announcement that fishing jobs will be added to the shortage occupations list.

In a letter from the Home Secretary a few weeks ago, the industry was informed of other forms of support, including a service to guide employers and applicants through the visa and sponsor application process, ensuring that there are sufficient English language testing slots, expediting visa and sponsor applications, further accelerating the decision-making process for no extra charge, and dedicated points of contact in the UK Visas and Immigration service for the sector. That was reasonably well welcomed by the offshore catching part of the fishing sector, but this industry has sourced personnel from outside the European economic area for many years, so people are reasonably experienced in those processes. Such a suite of support, if it could be expanded beyond the catching sector, would be very welcome in the processing sector. This type of assistance has already been provided to other industries, including the food and drink processing sector, so there is precedent.

I welcome on behalf of seasonal fruit farmers the announcement of 10,000 additional visas for the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. I encourage the Minister and his officials to consider adding to that scheme, without necessarily increasing the numbers, those elements of the seafood industry that are seasonal—for example, the herring roe season.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes.

[David Duguid]

I thought that might prompt a response. I think it is in October or November. Fishing happens all year round, but there is seasonal activity at a time when the industry struggles to find people. Adding that to the seasonal agricultural workers scheme or seasonal food workers scheme could be another option. Such a change would involve only a small number of visas, but it would have a huge impact on the coastal communities.

I will end on the subject of numbers. While we welcome the 55,000 annual visas for seasonal agricultural workers, the numbers that we are talking about today— I am surprised that it has not come up before—are in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands. In addition, we are talking about getting through a transition period, as other hon. Members have said, to a point in the future when, ideally, we would get every single person in the seafood industry working from the local communities in which the industries exist, but certainly we would be talking about very low numbers in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

Absolutely. Despite having been there so many times in the past, I—and I am sure he, and every other hon. Member here today—would love to be able to sit down again with the Home Office, and with the representatives of these communities and industries, and say, “Please, let this time be different.”

[Mr Carmichael]

I am never going to give up on this. I think we have made that very clear. However, the reason why I am particularly unhappy about this now is that this feels like it is the final word from the Home Secretary.

The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance engaged with the Home Office in detail and at length. It explained everything in incredible detail that even the slowest of learners must have been able to pick up. At the end of the day, it just got told a straight no. There comes a point where we must ask, “What more do we have to do to get this case across?”

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration. It seems that, no matter who we speak to, no matter when we speak to them, and no matter the strength of the case that we put forward, there just seems, historically, to have been absolutely no desire on the part of the Home Office even to see the problems that the inshore fishing industry has, to view it as an exceptional case, and to understand the Department’s responsibility to help these communities and the industry to find a bespoke solution to their problems. We were repeatedly told that, as far as the Home Office was concerned, it was an issue for the fishing industry and was for the fishing industry to sort out.

However, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland have said, does anyone believe that we would willingly continue on this merry-go-round if there were easy, quick-fix solutions to be found, and if there were locally available crews waiting and queuing up to work on the boats? There simply are not. That is why we have come away from every one of those meetings with the distinct impression that the Home Office, rather than wanting to be part of finding a workable solution, sees its role as being there to police the legislation that is already in place.

The hon. Member for Strangford was correct when he said that there is a complete unwillingness on the part of the Home Office to accept that the 12-mile limit on the west coast of Scotland and in Northern Ireland is vastly different from the 12-mile limit on the east coast, and that a blanket one-size-fits-all policy totally ignores the fact that, for smaller fishing boats working out of Oban, Tarbert, Carradale or Campbeltown, the 12-mile limit stretches far out into the dangerous deep waters of the north Atlantic.

We also know that the mainstay of the west coast fleet is the shellfish industry. It has arguably the best langoustine and scallops in the world, which are found in the safer, shallower inshore waters in the Scottish Hebrides. The example given by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about his fishing communities having to go beyond the uninhabited islands should be remarkable, but maybe in these circumstances it is not. While on the east coast a large fishing fleet can head out to sea outside UK territorial waters relatively quickly, on the west coast we simply cannot. The problem of geography is essentially creating a huge problem for one of the most important sectors of our rural west coast economy. Historically, the Government’s response has been that it is not their problem to find the solution. While I welcome certain things that have been introduced, history and experience tell me that we will not get much further; I hope that the Minister is the one to prove me wrong.

It has already been said that what is being proposed in the skilled worker visa does not create a level playing field at all, as the cost of securing the skilled worker visa is huge. Skippers and owners will have to pay out thousands of pounds getting visas and the ability to bring in workers. While the lowering of the fees and the reduction of the salary threshold are all to be welcomed, as we have heard so often this afternoon, the draconian requirement for applicants to have an English language examination is causing huge problems.

For those recruiting deckhands to work on inshore fishing boats, the demand that every worker achieves level 4, B1 in English showing that they can read, write, speak and understand English is almost ridiculously prohibitive. This is not the first time that that has been raised in the House. Late last year, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke of a skipper in her constituency who brought in a vastly experienced Ghanaian fisherman to work as a deckhand, but he could not get past the B1. He could not get past that English language test, and it made a huge difference to not just him, but the boat owner and everyone else on the crew, because they simply could not go to sea. The Minister will be well aware of the article in Fishing News in which the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance told the paper that

“getting fishermen through the B1 English language requirement is now a big issue.”

I know that he will be aware of that, because the hon. Member for Totnes just told him that Crew Services Limited said that of the 325 non-UK crew on its books, only six have that certificate.

Earlier this week, I was in contact with a number of boat owners and skippers in Argyll and Bute. I talked to Malcolm MacKinnon, who owns five vessels in Tarbert. We discussed what the situation on the ground there was, and he told me that because of the chronic shortage of deckhands, his 22-metre fishing boat, The Elegance, has been tied up since 9 April. Malcolm employs hugely experienced skippers, and his opinion is that the requirement for deckhands to be able to speak and understand English may well be reasonable, but the demand that they are also able to read and write English to that level is a completely unnecessary hurdle, and utterly disproportionate to the tasks they will be asked to perform while on his boat.

Malcolm pointed out that a tied-up boat does not affect just the skipper, his crew and their families through a loss of income; it has a huge knock-on effect on the local community, where businesses rely heavily on each other in a way that perhaps does not exist in more urban areas. He told me that over a 10-week period, the boat would normally have spent money on 80,000 litres of fuel, 50 tonnes of ice and £3,000 of local groceries and supplies, as well as a supply of gloves, overalls and various other items from the chandlery in the local area. He also told me he was in the process of buying a new vessel, but decided to pull out of the purchase because he knew he could not get the crew. 

In Mr McKinnon’s opinion, the whole of the west coast of Scotland would probably get by on only 300 foreign crew members. That is the level we are talking about; that is the reality of the situation on the ground in the west coast of Scotland. Mr McKinnon’s case cannot and should not ever be seen as being unique, because it is multiplied many times over across the west coast. The impact on already fragile rural communities and their economies is enormous.

All we are asking for is a level playing field—one that does not penalise small fishing communities simply on the basis of their geographic position in these islands. I ask the Minister, after all of the years, after all the meetings and after all the pleas that have been made from across this House, will he be the one to finally break the cycle, so we can get that level playing field for our small, local, rural communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for the constructive meeting that he and I had earlier in the year with representatives from the fishing sector. I am grateful to him and to all other hon. Members who have participated today. I was grateful for a recent meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), which was very productive. He made a number of important points, and in a moment I will respond to him as to how the Government intend to take them forward. I will pass on to the Prime Minister an application from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) to be fishing Minister, although he might have competition from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan.

The Government fully recognise the importance of the fishing industry to the UK’s economy. It has played an integral part in the UK’s heritage and will play an important part in its future. It is a mainstay of coastal communities. It provides employment, shapes infrastructure, and provides nutritious and delicious food for our domestic and international markets.

In recognition of the important contribution that fishing makes, the Home Secretary and I are of the view that, following the implementation of section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act, which clarifies the long-standing position that migrant workers within 12 nautical miles of the UK require a work visa, it is vital that the Government do what they can to find further ways to support the fishing sector in using the immigration system.

In the Home Secretary’s letter to the sector last month, which has already been referred to, she set out that the Department stands ready to deliver a comprehensive package of support to the sector. The package includes guiding fishing firms through the visa and sponsor application process, as well as the broader immigration system; ensuring that there is sufficient capacity for English language testing slots; expediting visa and sponsor applications; further quickening the decision-making process for no extra charge; and having dedicated points of contact in UK Visas and Immigration for the sector. That is a broad package. It is based on one that we have produced for other sectors in the recent past that has been appreciated by those sectors and has generated dividends.

[Mr Carmichael]

Earlier today in the House, the Minister said that the package had been welcomed by the fishing industry. Who was he talking to who welcomed it?

[Robert Jenrick]

My Department has told me that stake- holders have welcomed it, and I think it is a good package. We are already starting to engage with firms and representatives who are responding to it. The sector is well catered for under the points-based system, but I will come in a moment to the changes that we propose to make. Those in a range of eligible fishing and processing roles—including deckhands, which the right hon. Gentleman referred to earlier—have had access to the skilled worker visa since April 2021.

We believe that with the right level of support, the sector should be able to further navigate the existing immigration system. Building on that, and further to representations from a number of right hon. and hon. Members present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, we have decided to add further fishing occupations—share fishermen, trawler skippers and deckhands on large fishing vessels—to the shortage occupation list, all of which the Migration Advisory Committee recommended in 2020 as part of its SOL review. That will ensure that the fishing sector can continue to access the talent that it needs at reduced cost, and the Government will implement that during the summer on an interim basis until the wider MAC review into the SOL has been completed.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Member’s knowledge of the fishing sector is superior to mine. I do not know the exact definition, but I will happily get my officials to write to him and we will place on record in the Library of the House what the Home Office considers the official definition to be.

We strongly encourage the sector to engage with us to ensure that firms can attract the workers that are needed. The sooner that happens, the less disruption the sector will face. My officials, along with officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stand ready to help. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said—echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan and others—the long-term, sustainable answer is not to rely solely on international labour but to train more domestic workers to embrace technology and automation to the extent that that is applicable. We all appreciate the challenges that the sector faces and the difficulty in recruiting domestically at present. Nobody is blind to that, and the Home Secretary and I are certainly not.

On broader non-immigration aspects—this point was raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and others—DEFRA continues to run the access to labour working group that was launched in June 2022 with the purpose of improving relationships with the industry, ensuring that it has a voice at the table, and Home Office officials are represented on that working group. That includes representatives from the catching, processing, aquaculture and shellfish sectors across the United Kingdom. I have encouraged my officials to play an active part in that so that we can have the dialogue that everyone present seeks to achieve.

In terms of helping the sector to recruit and train the next generation of fishermen and women, the Government have provided funding through the £100 million UK seafood fund to remove some of the barriers that new entrants to the sector face, and DEFRA has awarded £1.1 million through the fund for skills and training to help industry with recruitment and retention issues. Seven projects across the UK have received funding to improve the quality of training, promote career progression and help to attract new people into the sector.

[Mr Carmichael]

What help is that to the constituent I referenced who still owes £680,000 to the bank, and who cannot go to sea because he cannot get the crew? He will not be around by the time these people are available for his ship.

[Robert Jenrick]

I appreciate the urgency of the issue, but it is important that the sector plays its part in considering the long-term future of training and recruiting new individuals. The funds provided by DEFRA will play a part in helping the sector to adapt to the future.

In addition to the grant schemes in England, the fisheries and seafood scheme offers extensive support aimed at attracting new entrants. Eligible projects include supporting new entrants into the industry, the creation of job opportunities and the provision of apprenticeship schemes for new entrants, perhaps including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes.

[Mr Carmichael]

Is it the Minister’s position today that the same people—the same stakeholders in the industry —who have been telling him that they welcome this somehow or other did not realise they had a responsibility to upskill their own workforce?

[Robert Jenrick]

No, it is not. As with any sector of the economy, there is a role for Government in producing an immigration system that enables access to foreign labour on a pragmatic basis where there are skills shortages. There is also a role for the industry to adapt, evolve and train British workers to take those jobs, and both have to work together in harmony. I have just set out the funding streams available through DEFRA to help support the sector to do that, but I do not underestimate how challenging that will be for the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not want to overstate it, but I know from my conversations with officials in the Department that they believe there is evidence of abuse. If I am able to put any of that in the public domain to give a guide on the scale of it, I would be pleased to.

Section 43 of the Nationality and Borders Act simply clarifies what has been the Government’s policy position for some time, which is that foreign workers working in our waters need permission to do so. It does not introduce a new policy.

[Mr Carmichael]

Why did the Minister include Sule Skerry within the definition of waters to which the Act applies?

[Robert Jenrick]

I was interested to hear the point that the right hon. Gentleman made in his speech. As I understand it, the Home Office has simply taken the standard definition of 12 nautical miles, and all islands that fall within UK waters are in scope of the UK’s immigration system. It is not within the power of the Home Office to change where UK waters begin and end. If he contests that or would like to further discuss the matter, I would be happy to take it up with him.

[Mr Carmichael]

It is in our interests to try to polish this particular item, because it could make a real difference. Sule Skerry is about 90 or 100 miles out from Orkney mainland. Those waters are very different from the ones we are talking about. Boats often go there, and they rely on it for shelter. Including places such as Sule Skerry will put lives at risk. Is the Minister happy with that?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be happy to make further inquiries and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, 12 nautical miles merely represents the standard definition of UK waters. If that is the case, it seems difficult to hive off particular parts of UK waters for the purposes of our immigration system. I am happy to be corrected if that is not an accurate description.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I assure him that I will take that request away and give it careful consideration. If there is any further information that he or the representative bodies would like to submit to us, I would be happy to consider that. But I think he understands the principles on which the decision is taken and that it is not an easy decision to give special treatment to one particular sector when others in the country would like similar treatment. Our overall policy is the right one. We want people to have a good degree of English if they are coming here for sustained periods or on a route to settlement.

I would like to update hon. Members following the conversation I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. He asked for two particular Home Office considerations. First, he asked whether the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which, as he noted, we have extended into 2024 and increased to up to 55,000 workers, could be extended to include certain fishing occupations that are undertaken onshore and that could be construed to be seasonal in nature. I undertook that we would consider that. My hon. Friend undertook that he and the sector would build an evidence base to support and inform the decision by the Home Office.

Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether the package of support set out by the Home Secretary to enable easier access to the skilled worker visa system could be extended to certain onshore activities. Again, I undertook to look into that. I will revert to him and other right hon. and hon. Members once we have taken those issues forward. If other Members or representatives from the sector who might be listening to the debate want to participate in informing those decisions, I encourage them to do so.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—although we still have an hour and a quarter. He has been generous with his time so far. The hon. Member for Strangford can still take time at the end of the debate, as I recall.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), told me on 20 April that she would pass on my request for a meeting. That request was to meet not just me, but fishing organisations as well. I do not know whether that maybe slipped her mind, or if there are other bases on which meetings are offered. Will the Minister meet me, other hon. Members who have an interest and fishing organisations, to hear from them, in early course? Those organisations may be different from the stakeholders who have given him the views that seem to inform his thinking today.

All joking apart, this really matters. It is having a massive impact on some of the most economically fragile communities in this country.

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be pleased to meet the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I have met the hon. Member for Strangford and representatives from the Northern Irish fishing sector, and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. That is a decent number—I have met two out of the four Members here. I would be pleased to do the same for the right hon. Gentleman.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate, and all those who have spoken. I hope I have made clear that the Government are committed to supporting the fishing sector as much as we can. On top of the already good coverage that our immigration system has of the fishing sector, I hope that the additional support that the Home Secretary and I have brought forward in the last few weeks, both in the package to assist with navigating the skilled worker visa system and now the additional occupations added to the shortage occupation list, will further improve the situation.

I hope Members will assist the Government in encouraging full engagement with our offer of support, which in turn should enable the industry to make full use of the system. The sooner that engagement happens, the less disruption there will be. I look forward to working with the sector in the future.

Student Visas

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The education of international students is an important export industry. I believe that it is the UK’s fourth or fifth-biggest export industry, and that is a good thing, and it is supported by the Government. That is why we created the international education strategy that has proven to be so successful. But what we are doing today is ensuring that we do not see unintended consequences and unnecessary pressure on public services as a result.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

What impact will these changes have on the number of students from overseas coming to study in British universities, and what will be the financial consequences? Has the Home Office made that assessment?

[Robert Jenrick]

As I said, we have already met our target of 600,000 students coming to the UK from overseas. That is 10 years early; in fact, last year there were 605,000. We expect the numbers to increase this year beyond 600,000. There is no suggestion that universities will be short-changed as a result, but in the medium term it will obviously involve fewer dependants coming with those international students. For the reasons that I have set out, we think that is a good thing. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not.

Coronation: Policing of Protests

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend puts it very well, and I join him in opposing Sadiq Khan’s appalling ULEZ idea.

The police and armed forces did a great job of policing the coronation. Between the Metropolitan police and Thames Valley police, who policed the Windsor concert the following day, almost 30,000 officers were deployed at one time or another during the relevant period. I think 11,500 officers were deployed on the day of the coronation itself, in addition to 6,500 armed forces personnel. There were 312 protected people who came to this country from around the world, and we deployed almost 1,000 close protection officers. All those officers did a fantastic job in a moment of national pride for all of us.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am a little surprised that the Minister apparently accepts, without question, the proposition that the Metropolitan police now apologises to people who have been lawfully arrested. Even by his standards, that is something of a novel departure.

The Public Order Act has given police officers broad and sweeping powers, which in turn require the police to exercise discretion and judgment with no context or guidelines. If there is no change to this legislation, such things will keep happening. There should have been better pre-legislative scrutiny of the Act, but there was not. Will he now commit to allowing post-legislative scrutiny?

[Chris Philp]

Many pieces of legislation require on-the-ground interpretation, whether by the police or subsequently by the courts in case law. Indeed, the new Act contains much more precise definitions of what constitutes serious disruption, which was previously extremely ambiguous. The police and others had called for that clarity. Obviously, the House is welcome to conduct scrutiny whenever it wants. It is standard for new legislation to be subject to post-legislative scrutiny some time later, but in many areas this new Act, which recently received Royal Assent, provides additional specificity, clarity and precision that were previously lacking.

National Security Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

We have a real problem of the ISC remit’s being out of date. If the Government argue that the solution that amendment 122 proposes to that problem is imperfect, I might be prepared to agree with them, but it will become increasingly difficult to resist imperfect solutions to this problem if the Government continue to resist and to refuse finding a more perfect one.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I will speak to amendment (c) in my name and in those of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and—though it came too late to be printed on the amendment paper—the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) . Amendment (c) would, as it states, disapply subsection (2) of proposed new section 50A of the Serious Crime Act 2007,

“in relation to an alleged offence that relates to conduct involving—

(a) torture or inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, or

(b) the violation of a person’s sexual integrity.”

It is worth saying that the Bill that has come back from the other place is significantly improved on that which was sent to it. I posit the thought that, had the Bill started out as it stands today, an amendment such as mine would probably feature. It sits more logically with the structure of the Bill now, and it would avoid some of the unintended consequences. That is the disadvantage of starting a piece of legislation—a Bill of this nature should always have the maximum cross-party agreement and political consensus behind it—in a way that was, in the early days, quite divisive. The issues could perhaps have been better interrogated further upstream before the legislation came to the House.

The points that I wish to pray in aid of the amendment relate to the way in which clause 31, as it stands, would have effect. There are a number of points, which I will cover as briefly as possible because I do not want to filibuster the opportunity to put my own amendment to a vote; I have seen that done too many times in the past.

One concern, on which I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view, is that the International Criminal Court has warned that clause 31 as it stands would open the jurisdiction of the court to look at the actions of UK personnel. To the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the ICC’s chief prosecutor wrote that cases could now be

“potentially admissible before the ICC”—

a fairly strong statement in these circumstances—citing the risk of creating gaps in the domestic prosecution mechanisms for war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome statute. The prosecutor said that the Bill would be clear if it clearly excluded serious human rights abuses from its remit. I do not know if it is the Government’s wish and intention that the International Criminal Court be given jurisdiction in that way, but should that ultimately turn out to be the case, neither the Minister nor his successors will be able to say that they were not warned.

Clause 31 could also give Ministers and officials a statutory defence for involvement in crimes such as targeted killing and torture. That could include sending information from the UK overseas to be used in a torture interrogation, assisting the offense of torture under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Under the clause, a statutory defence would be available if the action were deemed necessary for the proper exercise of a function of an intelligence service or for the proper exercise of a function of the armed forces. In the Lords, that point was interrogated at length in Committee. The Minister in the Lords said that he would revert to Lord Pannick, but he never did. Instead, the Government chose to proceed in the way that is presented to the House today.

Clause 31 almost appears designed to protect politicians and officials in the UK rather than British personnel operating overseas. The clause would provide a legal defence for encouraging or assisting crimes overseas, such as giving a tip-off that leads to someone’s torture, as opposed to the direct commission of the crime itself. This is not fanciful; we know what was done by Jack Straw and senior officials of the day in relation to the Belhaj and Boudchar cases. Although we have never really seen a proper conclusion to those cases, such an operational defence would put that comprehensively beyond reach.

The clause could also discourage the Crown Prosecution Service, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Lord Advocate from bringing cases. Where decisions are made about bringing prosecutions on individual cases, including those against Ministers and officials, the availability of a statutory defence for any conduct deemed “necessary” would likely discourage the prosecution authority from bringing a prosecution relating to criminal activities—or what would otherwise be criminal activities—that Ministers and officials assist or encourage others to do overseas.

In its simplest form, the Bill would still undermine an important and long-standing legal prohibition in this country on torture and related abuses. We have a long and distinguished history in this area. Conservative Members will be aware of the landmark changes made under the Government of the late Baroness Thatcher to create a specific criminal offence of torture. If the Government seek to undermine Baroness Thatcher’s legacy, I am quite prepared, on this one limited occasion, to take up cudgels and defend it.

The Bill also raises the question of our country’s moral authority. What right do we have to criticise other countries—for example, Saudi Arabia for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, or Vladimir Putin’s Russia for its extraterritorial offences—if we authorise the conduct of our own Ministers, politicians and personnel in relation to such activities? This is about our moral authority. I would like to think that the Government will look kindly on the amendments, if not today, then perhaps when the Bill returns to the other place.

Illegal Migration Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

On behalf of the Home Office, I pay tribute to those Border Force officers who nobly volunteered to serve in Sudan this week, to support British nationals and others as they are processed and swiftly returned to the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary and I praise their professionalism and their sense of service and duty.

Before I address the key Government amendments, it is worth reminding the House of why the Government introduced this vital Bill. A sovereign state must have control of its borders. Quite properly, we have an immigration system that determines who can come to the UK lawfully, whether to visit, to study, to work or for other legitimate reasons. Our immigration and asylum system also makes generous provision in providing sanctuary for people seeking protection. Indeed, we have offered such protection, in different ways, to nearly half a million people since 2015.

But the people of this country are rightly frustrated if a self-selected group of individuals can circumvent those controls by paying people smugglers to ferry them across the channel on a small boat. Why would someone apply to come to this country for employment if they can instead arrive on a small boat, claim asylum and then, as one amendment suggests, acquire the right to work here after 12 months?

Illegal migration undermines the integrity of our immigration system. It puts unsustainable pressure on our housing, health, education and welfare services, and it undermines public confidence in our democratic processes and the rule of law. That is why we want to stop the boats and secure our borders, and this Bill is dedicated to that goal. It will send a clear message that people who enter the United Kingdom illegally will not be able to build a life here. Instead, they are liable to be detained, and they will be removed either back to their home country, if it is safe to do so, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Is the Minister really asking the House to believe that such an amendment would act as a pull factor? Is he saying that people will come here because of the possibility that we might pass an amendment giving asylum seekers the right to work? If that is his case, it is particularly poor even by his standards.

[Robert Jenrick]

It is a pull factor to the UK that individuals can work in our grey economy, which is a cause of serious concern. If we were to add an additional pull factor, by enabling people to work sooner, it would be yet another reason for people to choose to come to this country. I will return to that point in responding to other questions before the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

I raised that point with the Minister for Immigration. It is very important that we look at this issue carefully. It may well be necessary for the other place to rectify that because it sends a terrible signal to anybody who is being exploited. They will be told by the traffickers, “Don’t worry, they’re going to kick you out regardless. What’s the point of even helping to give evidence, because we’ll get you on the other side if you finger us?” That is what will happen.

[Mr Carmichael]

Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s best efforts, and he is a model of clarity on this, it is still like trying to knit fog. Does not the fact that we are dealing here with an amendment he has tabled that has subsequently been affected by a Government amendment to the original Bill illustrate the total inadequacy of trying to deal with a Bill like this in this way?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is a concern because we have clashing amendments. We know that. The point of this debate is to rectify that. We do not have a lot of time, so the right hon. Member will forgive me if I tentatively nod in his direction but at the same time pursue my own purposes. I will try to keep my remarks narrow. I do not want to go wide because other people wish to speak.

Amendment 4 is needed because victims of modern slavery experience inhumane torture and abuse. They are deprived of their liberty and their dignity. They are exploited and abused on British soil. Whether a UK citizen or a foreign national, they deserve care to recover and we cannot leave them subject to that exploitation. The point I keep coming back to is that victims in this category hold the key to the prosecution of the very traffickers we are after. We should not lose sight of that. If the inadvertent result of these changes to the Bill and the Bill itself is that victims are fearful of coming forward to give evidence, partly because the presumption is that they will leave the country, and partly because they do not have enough time to feel settled and protected to be able to give evidence—I think the police know this and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has quoted from a police statement—it will reduce the number of prosecutions, damage our case and act as an opponent, as it were, of the idea of sending a message to traffickers that their game is up.

All the evidence shows that, with appropriate consistent support, more victims engage with investigations and prosecutions, providing the vital information that brings criminals to justice. Support needs to come first to create that stability, otherwise they will not feel safe. If we put ourselves in their situation, we would not give evidence either if we thought that the next stage would be to go out of the country, where the traffickers would catch us and our families and others being abused. So it will get harder to get convictions.

I am pleased my right hon. Friend the Minister accepted there may be consequences, although we need to go further than “may”. There will be consequences as a result of the legislation. I do not believe that the Government want victims of modern slavery to be trafficked. I do not think they want the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to be damaged. In the minds of those in the Home Office, I think there is a genuine dislike of that legislation and a wish to blame it for excesses, but there is no evidence of that. Only 6% of those who claim to be victims of modern slavery have come across on boats.

First and foremost, there is not a huge, great swell. Secondly, the Nationality and Borders Act that preceded this Bill has tightened up on all the elements that claimants have to provide to show that that is the case. The rules are already tighter, and I suspect that will lead to fewer cases already. The question is, what is the point of putting these elements into the Bill, because they are in the previous Act, and we have still not seen the effects? We are putting at risk the prosecution of all those traffickers and bringing them to justice, for something that almost certainly will not happen. If it did happen, there is plenty of scope for that evidence to come forward through statutory instruments if necessary, but I do not believe that will be the case.

I am told endlessly that people will come and give false claims, but let me remind Members that referrals can be made only by official first responders who suspect that the person is a victim. In 2022, 49% of referrals were made by Government agencies— it is ironic that the Government themselves decided who were the victims. The idea that any person could come forward and suddenly say, “I’m a victim,” and therefore get lots of time, is not the case. The test of evidence is tough.

We should remember that our amendment is about those who are trafficked and abused here in the UK. That means that the evidence base will almost certainly be incredibly strong, because it is based around what we know to exist here in the UK. I understand that it is difficult when people are trafficked from abroad, but we are talking about people in the UK and their evidence is clear to all of us. Under the changes made to the national referral mechanism statutory guidance on 30 January 2023—which, again, we have yet to see the full effects of—the threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision has been raised to require objective evidence of exploitation. This is an unnecessary element of the Bill because we have yet to see the effect of the previous Act, which I believe is already having an impact, as do the police.

Other Members want to speak, so I will conclude my comments by saying that we should proceed with caution when it comes to modern day slavery. I am deeply proud of what we did and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead brought through, because it deals with victims, who cannot speak for themselves and are being used and abused by others. We were the first country in the world to do so, and others have followed suit. We need to send the right signals. The problem with the Bill is that it unnecessarily targets a group of people who are not the problem. They will suffer and, ironically, we will fail as a Government in home affairs because the police simply will not be able to get those prosecutions. On every ground, it is wrong.

Government amendment 95 is a disastrous attempt to make it almost impossible for anyone in the country to feel confident before they give evidence. I ask the Government to make it clear at the end of the debate that they will take this issue away, genuinely look at the unintended consequences and make that case to us, before we vote on their amendment.