Immigration

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Field]

I would be grateful if Front Benchers would listen. What I said was that the one survey that we have shows that after that period of time we could account for 20% of the students who come to our universities. They were still in this country—they had every right to be here—and they were pursuing studies or, more likely, working. We do not know from that Home Office study what happened to the other 80%.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the scale of net migration, although I do not support the wording of the motion. What is his view of the level of net migration that would be necessary to meet the terms of this motion? According to the research done by the Migration Observatory, even if we had no net migration into this country the population would reach more than 66 million in about 20 years.

[Mr Field]

We are not talking about 66 million in the motion, but about the rate that would push us over 70 million. One of the points in this debate is to ask the new Minister what steps he has taken to prevent that from occurring and to fulfil the Government’s objective to reduce net migration to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands.

[Gavin Barwell]

I support the manifesto on which I stood, but the terms of the motion are very clear that we are seeking to

“stabilise the UK’s population as close as possible to its present level and, certainly, significantly below 70 million.”

To achieve that, we would have to end net migration or even have positive emigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

May I start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) for introducing this debate on what is a hugely important subject? I am surprised that none of my Liberal Democrat coalition partners are present to discuss it. The tone in which the subject is addressed is very important, however. I was thrilled that he emphasised the positive impact migration has made to this country, while also explaining why he felt we needed to reduce net migration significantly. I absolutely agree with him about the issue of scale, too; I support the manifesto on which I stood for election. I do not support the terms of this motion, however, and I want to explain why.

My right hon. Friend rightly said that in the past 10 years the scale of population growth has been greater than at any time since the census process began. It is important to note that the pace of change is not that different from throughout much of the 20th century. The point is that the scale is greater, however, because we are starting from a higher baseline, and Members can reasonably argue that that is harder to accommodate because the population is larger.

I have four concerns about the motion. First, we have never had a formal population target, and I do not believe it would be right to have one. That is in part because of my second reason for not supporting the motion, which is that the population growth over the last 10 years is not solely due to net migration. Office for National Statistics and census data show that about 55% of the population increase is down to migration and about 45% is due to people living longer and also to increased fertility rates—which is an interesting phenomenon as many other western European countries are not experiencing it, and there is not yet a clear understanding as to why it is happening. If the country were to adopt a formal population target, the Government might have to look at addressing policies such as the number of children that families are allowed to have, and I would be completely opposed to that.

My third, and most substantive, objection, however, is the costs that would result from the levels of reduction in net migration that this motion would entail. I tried to make that point in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). I admire him greatly, but in order to attain the terms of the motion, which talks about

“population as close as possible to its present level and, certainly, significantly below 70 million”,

the Migration Observatory evidence shows that we would probably need to have either zero net migration or possibly even net emigration from the country. If we take a net migration figure of 100,000, which would be at the top end of the Government target, the population would be just under 70 million in 2035. This motion is not just calling for the Government to achieve their manifesto commitment, therefore; it is arguing for measures that go well beyond that, and they will have consequences.

The Office for Budget Responsibility model that we now all work on assumes that each reduction of 50,000 in migration will result in a 0.1% reduction in economic growth. When the OBR was mentioned earlier, several of my colleagues questioned the reference to it from a sedentary position. I am not an economist or an expert in these matters, but I do know that every Chancellor of the Exchequer must now base their Budget decisions on the figures the independent OBR produces.

[Mr Brazier]

The key point is not the overall size of the economy, but GDP per capita.

[Gavin Barwell]

I was about to deal with that, so I am grateful for the intervention. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) had it right in his speech—

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

This is an important point and I want to develop it. As I was saying, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green had it right, because there is clear evidence that migration does have an effect on economic growth, but there is no clear evidence that it has an impact on GDP per head. Those things are both important. GDP per head is important in terms of individual living standards, but if we are passionate about reducing the deficit, the level of economic growth is crucial. It affects tax receipts, the number of people out of work and the income coming into the Treasury—

[Mr Brazier]

rose—

[Gavin Barwell]

I am going to give my hon. Friend a full answer to his question. I strongly recommend that he reads the OBR’s fiscal sustainability report published in July, which looks not at what will happen over the next five years but at the longer-term consequences of an ageing population. It compares what might happen under its central estimate of 140,000 net migration, which is higher than I would like to see, with what might happen if zero net migration were to occur. It finds that over a 20 or 30-year period zero net migration would mean an extra 8.2% of GDP of fiscal tightening. In other words, very significant spending cuts or tax increases would be involved if that is the road we wish to go down as a country. We need to have this debate, because there is a balance to be struck. A policy of unlimited migration has benefits for our fiscal position, but it has real consequences for our public services, the level of housing we require and development in this country.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, which is unusual from a Conservative Member on the subject of immigration, and he is right to oppose the motion. The motion makes a sinister reference to taking “all necessary steps”. Does he agree that that would require more than has been explained and defined by the supporters of the motion? We heard something about repatriation earlier. Does he appreciate that they will probably have to go much further if they are to achieve these ambitions?

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to my colleagues. What they have done in this debate is, rightly, set out the widespread concerns that exist across this country. I am trying to talk about what the consequences of further steps would be, as those are where my concerns lie. I represent part of this great city, with its very diverse population. All the electorate in my constituency want a reduction in net migration and in population growth, but they do not want to see the economic consequences of taking that policy too far. This is a question of striking the right balance.

I wish to make a couple of other quick points. Some question whether there is a correlation between population growth and economic growth, but if they examine the parts of the country that have seen the most significant population growth in recent years, they will see a correlation with the areas that are performing best economically. A sort of chicken and egg situation applies, because an area that is doing well economically tends to encourage people to move there because they think they can find work there. There does seem to be a correlation at a local level within our country.

I briefly wish to pick up on what the Prime Minister said in relation to the reshuffle. He said that every Department should be actively

“involved in the effort to get the deficit down and get the economy moving.”

I agree that that is the central test. The Government must deliver the manifesto commitment on net migration. Equally importantly, we must give people confidence that the system is working and that the people coming into the country are those who are doing so legally through a properly run immigration system. We must also not lose sight of the clear economic benefits that a well managed migration system can bring.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) made an excellent point about the pressure on public services, but he also kindly acknowledged a good intervention—the British Medical Association has sent all Members a briefing on this—on the contribution that migrants make in delivering many of our public services. So, again, there is a balance to be struck.

For many of the things that the public are really concerned about, other solutions are available alongside a reduction in net migration. One of the real issues we have with the pressure on land for development is the significant reduction in household size. If, across this House, we could develop policies to try to prevent the level of family breakdown, that would reduce the pressure on housing. Another issue that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) raised was the regional imbalance around the UK. Parts of this country are very heavily populated, with real density, and they are often the areas that are seeing the biggest increases in population, but that is not the case uniformly across the UK. Half of all the population growth in the past 10 years was in London, the south-east and the east of England.

We could make much more of a national effort on infrastructure. Personally, I would have liked to see more cuts in current spending and more investment in infrastructure on the capital side.

Finally, if we are serious about this issue, we should consider not only non-EU immigration but migration from within the EU. The debate is a bit more complicated, in my opinion, than the motion makes out.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gavin Barwell]

I cannot, I am afraid.

Although I support the principle of delivering our manifesto commitment, I cannot support the specific wording of the motion.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

The Minister is wrong to suggest that the Joint Committee had an opportunity to consider the system that he has now put in the Bill. It simply did not. I am willing to give way to the Minister again. Did the Joint Committee consider the type of voting system that is in the Bill? Well, the Minister has decided to remain in his seat, which is his prerogative.

There are legitimate concerns about the possibility that this hybrid system will lead to tensions between the different types of Member, and that those who are elected and are full time will consider themselves more legitimate, and be treated as such, than those who are unelected and part time. There are also other concerns, which will no doubt be raised over the next two days.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Joint Committee had considered the issue of open lists. Obviously we did not consider the specific clauses that are now in the Bill, but if he reads our report he will see that there is a section referring to open lists, and a recommendation that states

“In the Committee's view, the voting system chosen should give voters the widest choice… of where to cast their preferences, whether that is within a single party or across candidates”.

We did consider the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman may wish to correct the record.

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me out by confirming that the clause was not considered by the Joint Committee.

EU Council

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why our approach in Europe—the positive steps we have taken—is about building an alliance with other European countries to push forward the single market and free trade agenda. It has been heartening that in recent months, people such as Prime Monti of Italy and Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain have been involved in that. There is no longer a north-south divide in Europe: many countries are pushing for the growth agenda that has been championed by both parties in the coalition.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s stress on the importance of the single market and his statement that, in other areas, the EU status quo is not acceptable. Does he agree that this issue will be solved in the long-term only by giving the British people their say?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right that, in the end, as Europe changes and as we seek this fresh settlement, we will need to seek a fresh mandate. That is what the Conservative party at least has clearly recognised.

Debate on the Address

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In terms of the money we spend and the decisions we make, this Government have been the most transparent in our country for the last 50 years. That is what matters.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

On behalf of my constituents Gary and Natasha Groves, whose daughter Lillian was killed outside her home by a driver who was under the influence of drugs, I thank the Prime Minister for meeting them at No. 10, listening to what they had to say and including in the Queen’s Speech measures to tackle the menace of drug driving. Will he join me in paying tribute to Gary and Natasha for responding to a personal tragedy by trying to make it less likely that other people endure the terrible loss they suffered?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise the case again. I pay tribute to his work. We will be legislating properly for drug-related driving. It is right that it is put on to the statute book in the same way as drink driving, and it would not be happening were it not for the very strong campaign he has fought.

The context for the Queen’s Speech is a world that is becoming ever more competitive. The countries that succeed will be those that know they have to deal with debts and deficit, and that in a competitive world they have to have competitive tax rates and the best climate for business investment. They have to back entrepreneurs. They need light regulation and lean government. They need to reform every part of government, from schools to the planning system, so that they get on the side of wealth creation, job creation and a growing economy. That is what we are doing.

This is a Government who confront the long-term challenges we face, and that is what our country needs—a Government who roll up their sleeves to deal with the deficit, not an Opposition who think they can borrow their way out of debt. We are a coalition Government determined to unleash the private sector, spread growth around our country and sort out our financial services, not a Labour one who bloated the public sector and sat back while an unregulated banking sector brought our country to its knees. This is a Government who are backing hard-working people, not an Opposition who say they are on their side but refuse to make work pay, refuse to cap welfare and want to heap debts on to our children. This is a Government taking the tough decisions to help families who work hard and do the right thing. We are acting for the long term and governing in the national interest. This is a Queen’s Speech to rebuild Britain, and I commend it to the House.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to explain. A range of people were authorised to have contact with News Corporation. Clearly, if a company is involved in a transaction, it has to have some contact with the Department about process and the rest of it. The authorisation was given—it was agreed by the permanent secretary—so I think that the hon. Gentleman is barking up the wrong tree.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Fred Michel said:

“Throughout the bid process, I met senior teams from all political parties on a regular basis to update them, ask their advice or share views on the situation.”

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of transparency, all parties should publish all correspondence between their representatives at those discussions at News Corporation?

[The Prime Minister]

That is very good idea. To be fair, Fred Michel even met the Liberal Democrats, so we all need to be transparent about this.

Party Funding

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

That is a rather over-excitable question that would be better directed to the Attorney-General, who is very much his own man in these and all matters.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a former registered treasurer of the Conservative party. Does not this affair, like the similar affairs under the previous Government, damage this whole House and all political parties? Is not the answer complete transparency about whom those on the Front Bench and the shadow Front Bench meet, and a cap on all political donations—individual, company and trade union?

[Mr Maude]

I completely agree. We approached the previous discussions absolutely in that spirit, and we will approach the new discussions in that same spirit, too. [Interruption.] I make the point again to the Labour Chief Whip, who is muttering from a sedentary position, that it was Labour’s own general secretary who said that it was Labour that blocked the last reforms.

Informal European Council

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I know that he has a lot of experience in this sphere. We are totally committed to trying to get this free trade agreement going. I think that there are real opportunities for both sides. I have mentioned the fact that we want to open up retail and services in banking and insurance in India. Frankly, we will have to do quite a lot of work to convince the Indians that that is in their interests too, but I profoundly believe that it is, as they want to be a rapidly growing success story of the future.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I welcome what the Prime Minister said about applying a growth test to everything that the EU does in future. Will he tell my constituents what prospect he thinks there is of applying that test retrospectively to existing EU regulations, which the British Chambers of Commerce says costs business £7.5 billion a year?

[The Prime Minister]

It is important to try to look at some of the existing stock of regulations, but I think that one of the things that badly needs to be done in Europe is making sure that it is not just when Economic Affairs Ministers get together that we think about growth, but that when Social Affairs Ministers and Environment Ministers get together we think about the potential costs of what they are signing up to. That does not happen at the moment and badly needs to.

EU Council

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is absolutely not the case because this new organisation cannot draw up or pass proposals that cut across EU treaties or EU legislation. The right hon. Gentleman knows this well. It is the case that Britain has suffered from some of the regulation that has come out of Brussels on financial services, and that we need greater safeguards. If we cannot get those safeguards within a treaty, it is better that those countries are in a separate treaty. That is a better safeguard than the alternative, and that is the point that he needs to understand.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition’s argument that one should never leave an empty seat at the table is surely a criticism of the previous Government’s failure to join the euro. [Hon. Members: “What?”] There has been an empty seat at the table ever since we did not join the euro. Does my right hon. Friend agree that somebody who is never prepared to disagree with our European friends, even when that is in British interests, is not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. His point about the creation of the euro being the fundamental moment that created these tensions in Europe is entirely right. The previous Government’s position was that they wanted to get us into the euro, but they realised that that was not possible. I think that that is still their policy. It was the creation of the euro that fundamentally changed the relationship in Europe, but even they decided that it was okay for eurozone countries to meet on their own. That is not being isolated; it is recognising the reality that Britain does not want to be in the euro, so we cannot stop the meeting going ahead.

Industrial Action

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

That is wrong in so many ways that it is hard to know where to start. The hon. Gentleman talks as though there is a surplus in a fund. I am sorry to break this to him, but there is no fund. Teachers’ pensions are being paid for by contributions paid predominantly by the taxpayer. There is not a surplus; there is no fund whatsoever. We have to get a better balance between what teachers themselves pay towards their pensions and what the wider taxpayer pays, and that is what we will do. However, there will still be more paid by the wider taxpayer than by teachers, and we support that too.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I join my right hon. Friend in thanking public sector workers who, despite being angry about pay freezes and pension changes, are serving the public today.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), a Labour councillor in my home town today told public sector workers that the money saved is going to be used to bail out the banks. What more can the Government do to make sure that people get told the truth about why these changes are being made and the detailed nature of the offer?

[Mr Maude]

We will do everything we can. We have communicated directly with civil servants because the Government are their employer and we can do that very directly. It is much more difficult to communicate directly with all teachers and people working in the NHS, because they are employed by a wide range of different, dispersed employers. However, the fact is that most public sector workers—more than three quarters—have ignored the call to take part in this irresponsible strike, and I warmly commend them for doing so.

Scientific Advice (Emergencies)

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I do not intend to speak in as much detail as our Chair, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), because I cannot hope to match his expertise. I want to discuss risk, and how we identify it, assess it, manage it and, in particular—this is the subject which I will start with—communicate it to our constituents.

We should acknowledge some real difficulties in communicating. There is a difference between the scientific community, which has a key role in identifying and assessing risk, and the public and how they understand such matters. There are differences of nuance—often, the situation is complicated, with all sorts of different variables coming together, and we will never succeed in communicating that level of complexity to the general public, so there has to be a fairly simple message which can be clearly understood. If we take our example of a reasonable worst-case scenario, the potential flu pandemic, scientists tend to look at the impact on populations as a whole, but the general public are interested in the risk to them as individuals and to their immediate family members, friends and neighbours.

One of the things that was clear from the evidence presented to us was the significant degree of uncertainty and the way in which the figures on the reasonable worst-case scenario evolve rapidly over a period. Although that was absolutely correct from a scientific perspective, the way in which it was communicated to the general public simply fed a sense of uncertainty and might have undermined people’s trust in the figures. One week people were told one figure was the likely outcome, but a few weeks later that figure had changed dramatically, and there is a risk that such things can undermine confidence in the whole process.

Furthermore, scientists trying to establish a causal link between two things will say that X led to Y only where there is clear proof that that was the case. However, many of us tend to rely on intuition and to suspect causal links, even when the same standard of proof has not been reached. There are, therefore, real difficulties around communication.

Page 28 of the report says that the Government’s definition of a reasonable worst-case scenario

“is designed to exclude theoretically possible scenarios which have so little probability of occurring that planning for them would be likely to lead to disproportionate use of resources…They are not predictions of what will happen but of the worst that might realistically happen, and therefore we would expect most pandemics to be less severe and less widespread than the reasonable worst case. By planning for the reasonable worst case planners are assured that they have a high probability of meeting the demands posed by the hazard should it occur.”

It was clear from the evidence presented to us that there are a number of problems with the Government’s approach. First, Professor Ferguson, the director of the Medical Research Council, told us that

“the term ‘a reasonable worst case’ is, by definition, not an objectively definable term; it is a subjective term. One could take the other extreme, and I remember David King and Sir John Beddington challenging what we were doing by saying, ‘Well, if you look at bird flu, that has a 60% case fatality rate’”.

I have already talked about the figures changing, and we heard clear evidence about that in our inquiry. We were told that as more and more data arrived, the initial figure of 65,000 came down and down.

There was a real issue with time lags, which the Government must look at. Professor Ferguson told us there was

“a three to four week lag between the group I was involved in coming up with new reasonable worst cases, and then coming into the public domain in terms of getting through the DH”—

the Department of Health—

“and Cabinet Office approval process.”

As a result, what the public were told was a reasonable worst case was already three to four weeks behind the evidence that was building up.

There is a serious issue about the potential damage to the chief medical officer’s reputation. The Phillips inquiry after the BSE crisis highlighted a number of clear lessons, one of which was that the public’s trust in the chief medical officer is precious and should not be put at risk. The chief medical officer told us:

“Even a back of the envelope calculation that I did suggested to me that we would get no more than a thousand deaths, but that was not the scientifically agreed figure. So I could hardly dissent from the bigger figure.”

As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, the chief medical officer gave a press briefing on 16 July. The press reported that 65,000 people could die. At that point, 30 had died, and the eventual death toll from the pandemic was 460. It must be a real cause for concern that the chief medical officer was using a figure in which he clearly had no confidence, because he did not believe it was anywhere near what was likely to happen. The review of the UK response to the pandemic, which was chaired by Dame Deirdre Hine, said:

“There was some unease about how reasonable the ‘reasonable worst-case’ scenarios were…. There was general agreement that the term was unhelpful”,

because it implied that the scenario was likely to occur.

I therefore strongly support the Committee’s recommendation that the Government should look at the concept of most-likely scenarios. On that point, the Government response was helpful. The Government said they would look at the conclusions of the Blackett review. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister if that has been completed and what it had to say. It would also be interesting to know whether the concept of a reasonable worst-case scenario was used when British citizens in Japan were given information about the risks posed by the Fukushima incident a few months ago.

I want briefly to touch on two other issues raised in the report in relation to risk. One is the extent to which the Government use scientific advice not only when an emergency happens, but when they formulate the national risk assessment. That raises the issue of the chief scientific adviser’s involvement in the process, and the Government’s response on that front was encouraging. They agreed that the chief scientific adviser should become more formally involved, and it would be useful, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has suggested, to clarify the exact nature of that involvement.

The other issue is the idea of a scientific advisory committee on risk assessment. I want to end with another quote from the report, which illustrates the issue more strongly than any of the evidence that we received. Speaking of volcanic ash incidents, Dr Sue Loughlin, the head of volcanology at the British Geological Survey, told us:

“It wasn’t particularly a surprise to the volcanology community that something like this would happen, but somehow that message hadn’t got through to Government.”

The Geological Society stated that

“some Earth scientists report that they have been warning Government and others of the potential for major disruption due to Icelandic eruptions for a number of years, but feel that little notice has been taken of these warnings.”

It is important that the Government pay more attention to scientific advice in drawing together the national risk assessment, rather than just waiting until a particular incident occurs. They should also look at the basis on which they communicate risk to the general public. I in no way underestimate the difficulties involved in that, and I have tried to touch on them in my speech—those issues are sensitive, and they are not easy to communicate—but the Committee’s work illustrates that there are some real problems with the Government’s approach. I hope that Ministers will give us more detail about how they wish to take those issues forward.