Immigration and Nationality Statistics

Debate between Chris Murray and Nick Timothy

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. As I understand it, when he was in the Home Office, the Conservative Government had a target of 100,000 net migration a year. Clearly, the Conservative Government spectacularly failed in that undertaking, so it is fascinating to me that they are keen to draw attention to this issue, when it is one of their poorest legacies.

[Nick Timothy]

I am entertained by the idea that special advisers are so important that they might be able to control outcomes such as this. If the hon. Member thinks that is the case, he might ask the Minister to invite one of the Home Office’s special advisers to take part in parliamentary debates.

[Chris Murray]

Well, thanks for that.

Turning to the issues the hon. Gentleman raised, on data collection, the ONS has significantly improved the immigration data we have in the last couple of years, particularly since the pandemic, by shifting away from the international passenger survey to things like Home Office and DWP administrative data. Is he aware of the Migration Advisory Committee report that came out yesterday that talks about the fiscal contributions and net impact of those coming through the skilled worker visa? It shows a net positive impact.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of other fixed costs for Rwanda, but the Home Office documentation is pretty clear on what that means. It means the things like digital and IT, legal costs and staff costs required to operationalise the Rwanda scheme. This information is all in the public domain, so I am perplexed as to why we are having a debate on it: I think it reflects the fact that the Conservatives have absolutely failed to understand why they got immigration policy so wrong when they were in government and why they failed to address the immigration challenges we have in the UK. The debate focuses not on the impact on communities or the economy, just the numbers overall. For years, the Conservatives focused on a net migration target that they spectacularly failed to meet again and again, and never tried to look at the impact of migration on communities.

It is so obvious that migrants are a vast range of different people. Different migrants will have different impacts in the different communities where they settle. There is a huge difference between adding some EU workers to parts of England that have never seen any immigration and having new immigration in big cities that have long histories and structures of absorbing immigration. We need to understand that our communities experience impacts differently.

We also need to think about the churn of immigration. There are two types of immigrants. Some will come, stay here, settle, learn English and get jobs, and, yes, over time they will turn into—just like any other British person—someone who uses public services sometimes but contributes to the tax base at other times. We have a model where we have high levels of churn in the immigration system. People will come and work for a couple of years, leave after they have learned English and got to know how the system works here and be replaced by new immigrants from overseas. It is not just about the number of net migrants in the country but the churn and lack of integration that we see.

Think about Madeleine Albright and her family who fled the Nazis. They first came to Britain and then went to the US as refugees. Madeleine Albright said that in Britain people said, “You are welcome here. How long until you leave?” Whereas in America they said, “You are welcome here. How long until you become a citizen?” We have no discussion about the trajectory we want to see migrants travel: integrating into our communities and contributing. We are stuck in a discussion about numbers and overall statistics that leaves the public utterly cold. I have run out of time, but it is fascinating to see that the Conservatives have not learned any lessons from the last 15 years of their migration mistakes.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Debate between Chris Murray and Nick Timothy

Report stage
Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Murray]

Absolutely. There is a small element of burden in the Bill, but it is light-touch and proportionate, and the alternative scenario is significantly more burdensome. In my own city of Edinburgh, the impact of a terrorist attack and of people not feeling secure in the aftermath could be destructive not just to the lives affected by the attack, but to the whole economy on which our city is based, which is event-focused. It is right for us to draw that distinction, and to seek to get the balance exactly right.

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent speech about the “protect” element of the counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear from the Manchester attack inquiry report that the asylum system is a big part of the story.

Salman Abedi and his brother Hashem—who planned the attack and prepared the explosives, and was as guilty of the attack as Salman—were born in Britain to Libyan asylum seeker parents. Their father, Ramadan Abedi, was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an Islamist militia. He was granted asylum in this country, but travelled back and forth between Britain and Libya throughout that time, which is a story that we often hear about people who are granted asylum here. Given the number of people who come here illegally and across the channel, whom we have no ability to investigate and on whom we cannot make checks, how does the hon. Gentleman think we might reform the asylum system to prevent such things from happening again?

[Chris Murray]

I am struggling to understand quite how that falls within the scope of this debate, but it is important to discuss the issue of how we deal with terrorism. As we have seen in the history of this country, terrorist attacks can be both foreign and domestic. They can be homegrown, or they can come from overseas. I have talked about the need to prepare for an attack before it happens, so that mitigations can be introduced. They can be long term, which means looking at where the threat is emanating from, or they can be immediately in advance of an attack, which means introducing security measures. My argument, however, is that the benefit of the Bill relates to what happens after the attack has taken place. We need to help the smaller venues that now find themselves within the scope of terrorist attacks to prepare for those attacks. It is not a question of who committed the offence, but a question of how they are prepared to deal with that event.

Employment Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Chris Murray and Nick Timothy

Committee stage
Thursday 28th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Murray]

Q May I ask about the evidence we heard about industrial relations, both from representatives of business and from the many trade unions that we have heard from? How do you see this Bill affecting industrial relations in Britain, and what do you think will be the long-term impact of that on the economy?

Justin Madders: Over the last 14 years, there has been a pretty hostile environment for trade unionists. That has been ramped up in recent years, which is why we have seen in the last couple of years the highest number of industrial relations disputes for about 40 years. The solution is not to continue to legislate to make it harder for people to strike; it is actually to change the culture and attitude towards industrial relations.

We are trying to make sure that trade unions have the opportunity to operate on a level playing field, and I think that we have heard plenty of evidence from both employers and trade unions that when there is a constructive relationship, businesses benefit and individual workers benefit. There is plenty of evidence that trade union members usually have better pay, and better terms and conditions—that is recognised throughout the world—and that is something that we want to help facilitate under this legislation.

[Nick Timothy]

Q Do you personally want to see increased unionisation in Britain, and do you hope and/or expect that the Bill will deliver it?

Justin Madders: I think that is actually a challenge for the trade union movement. I think that they would accept that this is really up to them. Personally, as a trade union member and someone who has been actively involved in the trade union movement for many years, I see the absolute advantages and benefits of being a trade union member, but it is really up to them to get into the workplaces, explain their advantages to the workforce and then engage on a tripartite basis with Government, business and workers to improve everyone’s working lives.

Employment Rights Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Chris Murray and Nick Timothy

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Timothy]

Q The impact assessment says that the costs of the Bill are around £5 billion, but earlier we heard that that is actually probably an underestimate and it is likely to be a lot higher. Could you tell us a bit about where those costs will tend to fall for your sectors in particular and how they will relate to other challenges that businesses are going to face with the national insurance rise, the equalisation of the minimum wage and higher energy costs?

Jamie Cater: A lot of those up-front costs will have to go into training, in particular for HR managers, people managers and line managers, not just to ensure regulatory compliance but for employers that want to think about how their broader culture and organisational culture reflects the principles of the Bill. Lots will go into ensuring compliance and wider training of staff.

I mentioned earlier that there was concern that the Budget announcements on NICs—you mentioned the living wage and minimum wage as well—may make it more difficult to take the risk of employing people who might require additional training and, more broadly, that training budgets might get squeezed. It is already difficult and has been made challenging over recent years for our members to recruit the apprentices that they need; I am thinking about the apprenticeship levy and wider skills policy.

The challenge, I suppose, is that given that training budgets are getting squeezed the money effectively goes increasingly into training managers rather than necessarily into the young people who need the trade and technical skills to work on shop floors and production lines. The risk is that that could further weaken manufacturers’ already unfavourable position when it comes to investing in the technically skilled workforces of the future. That is where we see the real risk.

Jim Bligh: I agree with Jamie on all that and would add two more specific examples. I have mentioned the administration burden, which falls particularly on small businesses but really falls on them all. There are two examples of where that might come in. One is on the collective redundancy proposals for consultation, which remove the single establishment. If you are a large business with, say, four or five different sites and you are making more than 20 people redundant at one of those sites, the expectation will be, according to how we read the Bill, that you consult across all those sites.

Previous witnesses have called this a perpetual consultation, and that is a concern that we have as well —that it would be quite hard to manage. It is administratively really difficult to manage something like that across five different sites in a business. It could also lead to uncertainty and confusion among employees, who are being constantly consulted on restructuring and changes to other parts of the business in other local areas that have no impacts on them.

The other point on zero-hours contracts is that there is a risk that with a short reference period of 12 weeks, you end up not aligning with seasonal spikes in demand, so you end up paying people substantially more to do contracts that actually are not required, given that that does not reflect a full season. So our proposal, like others’, is for something more reflective and closer to the Ireland model. We would suggest a 26-week reference period; that covers most elements of seasonality in a business.

[Chris Murray]

Q I am an MP from Edinburgh, and obviously that is a university city; it is a city with a lot of tourism and hotels and hospitality, and we also have the festivals in August, so we see a lot of this kind of stuff. Looking around my constituency, I can see a real difference in how employers treat their staff, some of whom will be really impacted by this legislation, but a lot of whom will not be, because they are already above that.

I think, Mr Cater, you said that a lot of your organisations already go beyond the provisions that are based in this law. Do you think that the legislation could lead to more of a level playing field, where the organisations that are already treating their staff well are unaffected, but others would have to change and improve—a kind of levelling up in how people’s staff are treated?

Jamie Cater: The important thing for levelling the playing field is the fair work agency, and making sure that we have an approach to enforcement of labour market policy and regulation that is properly resourced and does have that level playing field. I said right at the start that we support efforts to remove and address genuine exploitation and bad practice in the labour market. We have confidence that the fair work agency can begin to do that.

On our concerns about the Bill, we have talked a lot about statutory probation periods, but on guaranteed hours and so on, I think there is the potential to create a level playing field as long as we have the caveats that allow that genuine two-sided flexibility where it works in the interests of both the employee and the employer—retaining, for example, zero-hours contracts where they work for both parties, as in many instances they do, so that employers and employees can still benefit from those arrangements.

Some of our concerns around the right to guaranteed hours are in things like the definition of regular working hours, and the scope, which Jim has alluded to, of the reference period, where we think there is a risk of an unintended consequence because it captures a much broader range of flexible contracts than just literal zero-hours contracts or low-hours contracts. The example that we use in manufacturing is annualised hours contracts, where employees are guaranteed a minimum number of hours over a 12-month period. They have much more financial security in terms of pay, but those hours can still vary on a week-by-week or month-by-month basis. We would not consider that to be an example of, to use the words of the plan to make work pay, “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, but depending on where that 12-week reference period falls, and depending on how you define regular working hours and what the number of those hours might be, a form of flexible employment like that could end up being in scope when maybe it is not appropriate for it to be.

We want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences where arrangements like that, which provide financial security, stable employment plus flexibility for both parties—which should be retained—unintentionally fall within scope of the measures in the Bill, because that would mean that the Bill is not a level playing field; we would be in a situation where good options for both parties had effectively been taken off the table.