Work-based Immigration

Debate between Karen Bradley and Chris Murray

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight the Home Affairs Committee’s new inquiry on work-based immigration and to explain the innovative approach we have used with this inquiry. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this statement. I know that the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), was staying just for that thank you; he is welcome to leave now. [Laughter.]

When I was elected Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, one of the things I talked about was wanting to have a more informed and considered debate on immigration that recognises the distinction between legal migration—visas for work, family, study and humanitarian purposes—and irregular migration, which primarily means small boats nowadays, where the numbers are much lower but the attention much higher. We want a debate that digs into the reasons why net migration numbers have followed the path they have and how reducing those numbers, which is the stated aim of successive Governments, can be achieved in a fair way that serves our economic and national interests.

To do that, the Committee decided to commission a series of deliberative workshops. Instead of relying on opinion polls or surveys, which can only give a snapshot of views, we partnered with the think-tank Demos to design and deliver a rigorous deliberative process, and I thank the Liaison Committee for supporting us financially. This process is one where ordinary people, selected to reflect the make-up of the local population, learn about the issue, discuss it with one another, and work towards agreeing conclusions.

We chose work-based immigration as the focus of these workshops because it is an area of ongoing contention, the policy is constantly under review and therefore open to influence, and, importantly, the Government have effective levers to determine who is allowed to come to the UK on a work visa. So that people could better understand the complexities and the trade-offs in policy making, we wanted to hear from people in different parts of the country. We chose North Tyneside, Leicester and Renfrewshire. We wanted to share with them the kind of conversations that go on within Whitehall.

We know these questions are hard to resolve. I have been a Minister in the Home Office, and I know that it is hard—I sympathise with the challenges faced by the current Minister, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). Earlier this month, the Home Secretary revealed that she gets almost weekly requests from other Ministers to provide visas for foreign workers in different sectors. This is at the heart of the issue: the extent to which we want to rely upon migrant labour and skills, and the weighing up of the economic and social factors that influence the decision.

The report produced by Demos on the results of the workshops was published on 7 September, and it is available in the Vote Office. I hope it will be of interest to hon. and right hon. Members and to other Select Committees whose remit includes areas affected by immigration.

Between them, the 89 participants at the three workshops produced a list of 13 principles that they thought should underpin policy on work-based immigration and ranked them. It was striking that the No. 1 priority at all three workshops, in three totally different parts of the country, was that the Government should focus on training, upskilling and employment opportunities for UK residents, especially young people, before relying on migrant labour. The second-highest ranked principle was the need to ensure that local infrastructure can support migrants and existing residents. The third and fourth principles were the need for better workforce planning and for migrant workers to be protected from abuse by employers.

The fifth principle was about promoting an honest and balanced public conversation about immigration. That was our intention when we started this work, and I am pleased that the members of the public who participated at our workshops agreed with that aim. It is now up to us, in this House, to help promote that honest conversation. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has now joined us in calling for an honest discussion on this subject, although freedom of movement was not a question on the table when we started this work.

We are also reliant on the media to move away from the soundbites, simplistic characterisations, misleading memes and social media disinformation that only serve to polarise and infantilise. While there was more support for restricting numbers of low-skilled migrant workers than higher skilled, there was also some support for restricting neither. Similarly, there were differing views on whether we should prioritise short or long-term work visas. The most common view was that we need both, but the discussions revealed interesting nuances. For example, participants who prioritised greater integration found themselves arguing for longer-term work visas, which was not necessarily their starting position. They saw how policy design can have wider impacts and considered the interaction between competing objectives in reaching conclusions. That is the value of this deliberative approach.

When we received the report on the results of the workshops, we considered how best to use the conclusions to inform our future work on immigration. At the launch event for the report in Portcullis House on 7 September, I announced our intention to hold an inquiry based on the principles identified through the workshops. Our inquiry will focus on the top principle agreed in the workshops: to focus on training, upskilling and employment opportunities for UK residents, especially young people, before relying on migrant labour. We announced the full terms of reference on 15 September. These outlined the detailed questions that need to be answered in order to deliver an outcome that respects that principle.

The Government have undertaken to link their immigration policy to skills. We will scrutinise how they propose to do that. We will also examine the role that migration does and should play in responding to labour shortages, and how that can be more firmly linked to skills. We will look at the Home Office’s approach to managing the skilled worker visa, and how that links to wider skills policy. We plan to scrutinise the Labour Market Evidence Group—the agencies that advise on work-based migration policy—and test how the different objectives of different Departments are managed and how judgments relating to shortages and skill levels are made. We also plan to hear the views and voice of the public throughout our evidence sessions—both through the evidence we gather and from what we learned from the workshops.

Artificial intelligence is affecting pretty much every aspect of life and will continue to do so. Consultations are no exception. Most of our inquires attract large volumes of written evidence. We value that evidence and draw heavily on it to inform our thinking, conclusions and recommendations. We depend on it to do our work, but there are signs now—I am sure that colleagues are seeing this in their constituency correspondence and in other Committees—that AI is increasingly being used to generate lengthy submissions that do not necessarily add anything new to the evidence base. There are resources implications for handling large volumes of written evidence, and questions around its value.

Work is going on among Select Committees to look at how we can secure high-quality contributions to our inquiries: the experiences from those at the sharp end of policies and, when warranted, the considered views of an informed cross-section of the public. There are of course resource implications here as well, but I hope that the Liaison Committee might consider how best we allocate resources to best support our scrutiny of difficult policy issues in the age of artificial intelligence.

Those of us who observed the workshops and spoke to the participants learned that, even on a subject as sensitive and divisive as immigration, people are capable of having a reasoned, respectful and constructive conversation. Not only that, but they obviously valued the opportunity to engage with each other—different communities that do not always mix—and with the political process, in a meaningful way. They valued being listened to, and at the end, their views on our political process were more positive.

I look forward to returning to the House with the conclusions of the inquiry, and the Government response to it, in due course. In the meantime, I am happy to respond to any questions.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

As someone who served on the Home Affairs Committee for two years, I pay tribute to the Chair and the other members, who I can see around the Chamber. I am a partisan person, and I enjoy a partisan political fight, but in a Select Committee one works with people from other parties to get into the weeds of complex and difficult issues. I found that to be a rewarding experience that brings a lot to democracy, so I pay tribute to the members of the Committee.

The statement and report are important, because although immigration is one of the most divisive political issues, the report shows us that the public are nothing like as polarised as we would think. I attended the deliberation in Renfrewshire with the Committee, and on immigration the public are willing to engage with the trade-offs and find common ground between different positions. There is rarely someone who is 100% pro-migration or 100% anti-migration; they are much more open to persuasion.

Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the report shows economic migration is a tool of economic policy, but that we struggle to talk about it because it is occluded by discussions on the small boats? Does she agree that the public are willing to engage with complexity and the trade-offs involved, and that they are far more thoughtful and engaged than social media and the press would have us think?

[Dame Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman—who I will call my hon. Friend—will be very much missed on the Committee. He is officially discharged this evening, along with the Minister, and it is a sad day for the Committee to lose his expertise. All of us who attended the workshops found that the conversations became sophisticated. People started off with polarised positions and opinions—they spent a day and a half together, hearing from experts and talking about the issues, and each of the workshops made 10 recommendations, which could be distilled into 13 recommendations in total—but from some very different places we finished with remarkably similar recommendations. The hon. Gentleman is right that the level of conversation and debate was heartening to hear and showed that those conversations can happen in an adult way.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Debate between Karen Bradley and Chris Murray

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart. I refer him to the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation, which talked about the point he made about the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower-cost accommodation areas. We did ask the Home Office to look at that. I also suggest that he avoids X and Facebook in the morning. It will probably make his life a lot better.

I rise to speak briefly on the Bill, which I broadly welcome. These are matters on which our constituents expect action to be taken. It may not go as far as some would like in some areas and it may go too far for others, but on Second Reading we look at the principle of a Bill, and I agree that it should have a Second Reading and then be considered in Committee and on Report.

There are a couple of points I want to make before I move on to my main comments. On article 8 of the ECHR, the Chişinău declaration was very encouraging. It is a good step forward to see agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way article 8 and other parts of the ECHR are being abused. I suggest that the Minister look at section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that the UK courts “must” refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps the wording could be changed to “may” to make it easier for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that should not have any bearing on the decisions being taken in our courts. I also refer him to the work done in the coalition Government on the European arrest warrant, when we were still a member of it. We changed the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could have an arrest warrant applied to them. Previously, we had all sorts of spurious claims such as not paying tips to Greek waiters and so on. The Minister may want to look at that.

On small boats, the Select Committee visited northern France. The hon. Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK. We heard a lot from UK law enforcement and others who were working closely with their French counterparts. I encourage more of that.

However, I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight is. I pay tribute to our former colleague James Brokenshire, who as Immigration Minister insisted that he receive an update every single day on the number of people entering the country, the number who were in claims and the number of visas being issued. He kept on having a daily update. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a delight that you are in the Chair, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was also an Immigration Minister and she employed a similar approach. It would be fair to say that the evidence we have heard on the Select Committee indicates that that level of ministerial oversight has not happened at all times, and perhaps that is why we saw some big spikes.

[Chris Murray]

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and I were in northern France together. Does she share my impression from that trip that the scale and complexity of the operations the French Government were undertaking was quite astonishing? Will she join me in welcoming the new iteration of the Sandhurst treaty? This may be stretching the bounds of bipartisanship too much, but does she agree that it is good to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours? In cross-border channels, when difficult issues arise, it is only through those joint working operations—now that we have left the European Union—that we can collectively tackle the small boats, which are as much of an issue for France as for the UK.

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together. We also came away agreeing that if everybody who arrived from France was immediately taken back to France, it would kill the trade of the people smugglers. That is something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France.

In the short amount of time that I have left, I will focus on part 5. I declare that, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I have some concerns. Apart from anything else, human trafficking and modern slavery is not an immigration crime. Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain. Although I understand the reasons and we are grateful that there are some good points in the Bill, it is concerning that it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is.

I am in contact with a number of organisations, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. There is general agreement that there are some good things in the Bill—the strengthening of civil orders and the support for children are welcome. However, the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at, because nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery. A first responder has to say that this person is likely to be a victim of modern slavery, so what is going wrong with the first responders? Why is it that first responders are being dragged into, as the Government say, declaring people to be victims of modern slavery to avoid deportation? That is something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims.

One has to have a victim-centred approach to this crime in order to solve it; it cannot be solved only by pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre, because it is an extraordinary crime in which the commodity that money is being made from is the human being. It is not a drug, a firearm or any other product; it is a human being. That human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence, to speak out and to recognise the crime that has been committed against them.

Victim support is essential to solve this crime. If one wants to see the issue in a hard-nosed way, the only way we are going to kill the trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is the basic point. I do not have time to go through the specifics, but I urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities—in particular, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—to see where the measures that the Government have introduced may have unintended consequences that make it harder to tackle this crime. With that, I will sit down and let other Members speak, as there are many others who wish to do so.