Oral Answers to Questions

David Duguid Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As I said, my colleagues in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are providing extremely comprehensive packages of support. Rough sleeping is down by 35% since 2017 and by 28% since before the pandemic in 2019. The Government are willing to look at changes to make these provisions tightly defined and narrow. The intention is to use criminal sanctions only as a last resort where rough sleeping is disrupting a business, for example, and preventing it from operating. It is a last resort—the first resort will always be offering help and support.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of legal migration.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce levels of legal migration.

[The Minister for Legal Migration and the Border (Tom Pursglove)]

On 4 December, the Government announced a package of new measures to further reduce net migration, including but not limited to stopping overseas care workers bringing family dependants, increasing the salary threshold for skilled worker visas to £38,700 and raising the minimum income requirement for family visas in stages to £38,700. The changes are being introduced gradually from early 2024 and are not retrospective.

[David Duguid]

I welcome the measures taken to reduce abuses of the immigration system, but I also recognise the need to exempt critical occupations where we have a specific shortage from the new minimum salary, for example health and care workers. However, in the Migration Advisory Committee’s interim review of the immigration salary list, published on Friday, several occupations have been removed because a discounted salary of around £31,000 is well above the going rate for such occupations. Given the vital and growing importance of food security across the country, will my hon. Friend commit to a review of those occupations which, although not the highest tech or highest paid jobs in our economy, are none the less critical for our food sector and our rural and coastal communities?

Inshore Industry Fishing Crews: Visas

David Duguid Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[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.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the cramped living conditions on a fishing boat. When I was at school, I had a job painting fishing boats, so I was aware of the conditions. I have never been out in a fishing boat; if anybody watching this wants to offer me the opportunity, I will gladly take it up. He will have seen the conditions not just for the deck crew, the deck hands and the people we are talking about giving visas to; the skippers and the home-based crew of these vessels are in the same conditions.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He understands, as we all do, the practicalities, physical problems, obstructions and difficulties when it comes to fishing. We welcome foreign workers, and we need them. I gave the case of the two positions advertised right across Europe, when we were in the EU, and how many people inquired, how many said that they would take the job, and how many turned up. Foreign workers are now a vital and vibrant part of our fishing culture. They help us to supply the affordable food that every UK shopper wants to see. They do so much for us, but we still cannot offer them the opportunity to come to the UK on a visa that is a good fit for the important work that they do.

We have a problem, but as I said before, I am solution focused, and I believe that we have a solution. I will put it to the Minister and hope that he can give us some flexibility in the process, which we can then take back to our people. The problem is that Northern Ireland’s fishing fleet is penalised simply because of geography. Our position near the Isle of Man and the west coast of Scotland means that Northern Ireland vessels do not have the same easy access to waters outside the 12 miles enjoyed by fishing interests on the east coast of England, for example, or in Scotland. Consequently, our reliance on access to inshore waters means that employing crew on transit visas is no longer an option for fishing vessels in Northern Ireland, which is one of the problems.

We had the opportunity to meet the Minister in January this year, which was a chance to put forward a solution. I can probably add to the solution that we had at the time, because the two fish producers organisations in Northern Ireland, in connection and partnership with other fishing organisations in Scotland and indeed in England, put forward the suggestion that foreign workers could learn the English language before they come here, in a college in Sri Lanka that they are setting up. I will add another angle to that, but that is one of the solutions that the fishing organisations themselves are putting forward. It is practical, and it is costing them. They are not asking the Government for any money in that process; they feel that they can put it forward.

Our vessels are set to see their labour costs rise by up to 40% as they change from employing workers on transit visas to skilled visas—a cost that those in other parts of the country, by virtue of accident or geography, do not have to meet. That creates an unfairness where due to Home Office rules a fisherman fishing in one part of the United Kingdom is forced to pay up to 40% more for his crew than another fishing elsewhere in the UK. Northern Ireland’s fishing industry welcomes the pay protections the skilled visa system brings. Nobody decries that; nobody says, “Don’t do it”—we all accept and understand it. Indeed, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and I were talking about that in the voting lobby the night before last, because we understand that it is not an issue. The fishing sector is moving towards accepting it.

Northern Ireland’s fishing industry does not begrudge paying our international fishermen what they are worth, but it is clearly unfair that those who pay skilled-visa salaries can be undercut by those who do not, simply through accidents of geography. The Home Office will, of course, argue that the skilled visa system meets Northern Ireland’s fishermen’s needs. In some ways, particularly in how it improves the freedoms enjoyed by foreign fishermen when ashore, it is a very positive step forward. The situation is not, however, quite that simple.

The International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, ILO 188, is an important piece of legislation, of which the UK is a signatory. It protects the welfare of fishermen. It rules, for example, that a fisherman must have his repatriation flight paid for at his employer’s expense, and that his employer should provide his food at sea. Northern Ireland’s vessel owners willingly do both those things already—they are happy to.

The legislation, however, is effectively legally mandating benefits in kind that push the cost of employment up in ways that were not considered when skilled visas and their corresponding salary levels were devised. There needs to be a better understanding of that. Other employers who utilise skilled visas do not have to bear those costs, but fishing vessels do. Northern Ireland’s fishermen have asked for the policy to be applied in a fair, considered and even-handed way. We do not ask for anything that is not achievable or possible. That is why I look to the Minister for a better understanding and a positive response.

I ask the Minister and every MP in the Chamber to put themselves in the position of a Northern Ireland skipper for a moment. Imagine being in the southern Irish sea, wanting to access fishing grounds inside 12 miles of the shore but being unable to because there are transit visa crew onboard. Mr Vickers, imagine that you have tried to recruit skilled visa crew members, but those capable of passing the English-language requirement do not yet exist in sufficient numbers to make that option viable. Looking out of the wheelhouse window of the boat as it is tossed about on the sea, you see a French vessel fishing happily in the area that you are not allowed to work in. It niggles a bit when we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and our fishermen do not have the same freedoms as those from the rest of Europe.

The French vessel is allowed to work in UK waters because of the Brexit deal. I understand that—I understand how it works and where it will eventually lead to. The French vessel can also carry an international crew on the same transit visas, yet UK law affords it the exemptions that Northern Ireland fishermen are refused. That is a true story; I have not made it up—this is not an example without an evidential base. I suspect, in all honesty, that the Minister accepts that.

Northern Ireland’s fishermen have had to watch EU vessels employ foreign workers in UK territorial waters. They are there without any visa scrutiny whatever, while Northern Ireland fishermen are forced to remain outside those waters. Can the Home Office please put itself in their position, and explain where the morality and the fairness is? For the life of me, I cannot understand it at all. Can the Home Office appreciate the ridiculousness of a situation where it is easier for a British fishing business to employ foreign workers in UK waters if it buys into a French or Irish-registered vessel, rather than one registered in the UK? That anomaly is grossly unfair, and it grieves us all; there is not one Member who represents the fishing sector who does not think that.

It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary denied the request of the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance; the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and myself were also talking about the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance the other night. What it has put forward is a feasible and workable option, and one that should be looked at. The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance has asked for the full implementation of section 43 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and for more time.

As transit visa crews are replaced with skilled visa crews in job lots, some fishing boats will now be expected to go to sea with whole crews joining vessels they have never set foot on before, to work as part of teams that have never met each other before. That poses the question of how practical that is. Professional mariners baulk at the very idea of this. They have issues with the safety, practicality and physical working of it. Fishing is already the UK’s most dangerous profession. I said that at the beginning because it is a fact; I am not making it up. It is not the fault of the migrant fisherman that he has not been granted the time to safely integrate with his vessel and crew mates, yet he is the one carrying the risk.

In response to the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, the Home Secretary raised concerns about the welfare of fishermen. If welfare is one of her considerations, I ask her not to make an already dangerous job more so. I ask her to reconsider on the grounds of safety, with a short delay to the full implementation of section 43 so that crews on transit visas may be replaced with crew on skilled visas as part of the staggered, safe transition.

I said at the beginning that I want to be constructive and give the facts of the case for us in Northern Ireland, but I also want to lay out where I think we can move forward. I am pretty sure that the opinions of everyone else here today are similar. Our Northern Ireland fishing vessel operator can see his colleagues in the North sea targeting the same species, yet, because of a line on a chart, his business has 40% higher labour costs. He sees an EU boat fishing inside the UK’s territorial waters with a transit visa crew, yet his British boat, with the same category of crew, is not allowed there. Even if all his crew had skilled worker visas and he was allowed access to those waters, the French boat would still undercut his labour costs.

This is not about cheap labour, but I want to illustrate that point. Northern Ireland’s fishermen welcome the wage protections that the skilled visas bring. Indeed, that will drive up wages for all our fishermen, local and foreign alike, which is good for the sector because at least it makes it more attractive from a financial wage point of view. For many of Northern Ireland’s boats there is no great disparity in earnings based on whether someone comes come from Kilkeel or Colombo, or Accra or Ardglass, but the same rules should apply to all. The skilled visa system links skills and education in a way that is not always reflected in real life. When we see what is put forward, it is very hard to understand why—I say this with respect to the Minister—he is not reaching out and saying, “Let’s get that in place as soon as we can.”

Most of the international fishermen employed by the UK industry have little by way of formal schooling, but they are expert in their profession. Sometimes people do not have an education, but they have the skills and the ability to work on a boat. That is the frustration that we have here: people who can do the job, but do not have the full grasp of the English language that they need to have. To prevent them from helping our own industry simply because they cannot pass the reading and writing elements of an academic English exam, which reportedly sits somewhere between GCSE and A-level in difficulty, is perhaps contrary to the bigger picture of ensuring our food security.

The Home Secretary has kindly offered a package of help designed to aid the transition to skilled visas. That is welcome, but if I could push that offer of help just a little further, this is the crux of what I would ask for: to recognise that the highly skilled people from around the world who are already part of our fishing communities do not have to have the academic background that enables them to pass B1 level reading and writing. After all, fishing is something we learn in a boat, not in a classroom. Providing that formal academic training to our existing foreign fishermen, who are already working full time, will take months and cost individual fishing businesses tens of thousands in lost revenue because they remain unable to access inshore waters in the interim.

Assumptions are dangerous, and it is simply incorrect to assume that there is, anywhere in the world, a pool of eligible B1-standard fishermen who want to work in the UK. There is not, and that is the nub of the problem. The Home Office is asking the fishing industry to focus its recruitment efforts on a group of people who do not exist. The good news, and there is good news—I always try to bring good news, because that is my nature—is that the Home Office can do something practical to help.

Employers are allowed to pay skilled workers whose jobs are on the shortage occupation list a lower salary than would be the case if the jobs were not in shortage. Perhaps, for shortage occupations, the reading and writing elements of the English test could be reduced by one level from B1. That is my request. It is a practical solution to where we are, and it is a solution that the fishing sector and every MP here will put forward. The fishing sector will work alongside; if a partnership is needed to make this work, the Minister and the Government will have a partnership. The reading and writing could be reduced by one level from B1 for the first year of a person’s stay only; after that, they would be required to pass a B1 exam to remain—which is where we are now —thereby protecting the integrity of the skilled visa system. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will speak on that shortly and reiterate my point.

That little change could help the fishing industry retain many of the crew it already has by enabling them to successfully make the transition to skilled visas in a matter of weeks—almost right away—thereby minimising the economic cost of losing access to prime inshore grounds and minimising the accidents stemming from the employment of inexperienced and unfamiliar crew. I tell the Minister, with genuine respect, that here we have a solution that can work. Others will repeat that, and they will repeat it because it is right.

Fishing is an irregular occupation. It is unsurprising that it does not fit neatly into any of the current visa options—I understand that. Instead of trying to force square pegs into round holes, perhaps it would be better to begin a dialogue between the fishing industry and the Home Office as to how provision can be made within the framework of the skilled visa system to recognise those irregularities and help to make a better fit. We have put forward a solution, and I am confident that those who speak today will be united, because all of us represent fishermen who want the same thing.

We have great potential. After Brexit, we as a fishing sector were confident that we could move forward. I know that the Minister and the Government are committed to that, but we need some practical help with the technicalities of the system to make it happen. I have made the case, and I look forward to others’ contributions.

--- 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 ---

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate.

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I wanted to intervene so many times during his speech, but I did not want to interrupt his flow. He made lots of very good points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). We have not heard from the SNP spokesperson yet, but I am sure that we will broadly agree on most of what we say today. We all represent fishing communities, which, as we have heard, are as wild and varied in their needs and demands as the weather conditions they often face.

I thank the Minister and his officials for meeting me earlier this week to discuss this matter in some detail. It was probably one of the longest meetings with a Minister and his officials that I have ever had, but the fact is that we barely scratched the surface, because there is so much nuance in this industry and the devil is very much in the detail.

This is not a binary issue. It is not a question of whether immigration is bad or good. It is not even a question of whether immigration is legal or illegal. Nobody in this Chamber is advocating doing anything that would be against the immigration rules or classed as illegal immigration. It is right that the UK Government take every reasonable step to stop illegal immigration, stop the small boats coming across the English channel, and stop the disgraceful practice of illegal people smugglers putting vulnerable people at risk and taking advantage of them.

We are talking about a different kind of small boat, although sometimes they are not all that small. These fishing boats operate out of some of the most remote, sparsely populated areas, where unemployment rates are often so low as to be effectively zero. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, in a lot of these areas—particularly in Orkney and Shetland, and in Banff and Buchan, which I represent—there is huge competition from other industries. Traditionally, the competition comes from the oil and gas industry, but given the energy transition, the renewable energy sector is rapidly becoming a competitor, too.

I think we all agree that the system of using transit visas, which technically allow fishermen to enter the country on the basis that they will transit outside a 12 nautical mile limit to work, is not fit for the purposes described today. I have long said that a points-based immigration system, appropriately applied, could replace that system. It is on that basis that I welcome this week’s announcement by the Home Office that share fishermen, trawler skippers and experienced deckhands on large fishing vessels are to be included on the shortage occupation list. Inclusion on the list means that jobs qualify at the 20% lower salary threshold of £20,960 instead of £26,200. However, as has been mentioned, the salaries being paid to those guys are fairly reasonable, and although that measure may help some people start out in the sector, it is not the main obstruction.

Being on the shortage occupation list also means that applicants will pay lower fees of £479 instead of £625 for a three-year visa. That is also welcome. Yet the broader English-language requirements of the skilled worker route will still apply despite the jobs being on the shortage occupation list. It will come as no surprise that, like other hon. Members, I will make that one of my main points.

I welcome the addition of experienced deckhands to the skilled worker route back in 2021. As other hon. Members have said, that followed long discussions between hon. Members such as those of us here representing our constituencies today and the Migration Advisory Committee. I have been doing this for six years; others have been doing it for longer. Through all that, there has been a genuine desire from us as representatives of our coastal communities and from the fishing industry to work constructively and in partnership with Government to come together and find the solutions that we know are there.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Of course, the debate is about the arrangements, but there is also the broader point about where we can reduce bureaucracy. We have skirted around the point about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and health certificates. There is a series of measures by which we are inadvertently blocking people from getting back into fishing or getting into it. If we introduce the requirement for health certificates, that will have an implication for the visa arrangements of those who come over.

[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.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

As always, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this afternoon’s debate on visa arrangements for inshore fishing industry crews. It is good that it has brought together Members from Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), as well as, obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whom I thank for bringing this motion before the Chamber and allowing us to discuss it again.

I say “again” not to be disparaging in any way. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, how many times have we discussed the issues surrounding the inshore fleet? Yet certainly since I first came here in 2015, these issues have not been resolved and the Government seem utterly incapable of properly getting to grips with them, no matter how many times they are raised.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Strangford will recall us going to the Home Office in 2016, 2017, and I think again in 2019, with the representatives of our respective fishing organisations—and indeed, in one case with representatives from the Philippine embassy—to sit with Ministers and try to explain how the chronic shortage of professional seafarers in the UK is having a devastating effect on our communities, and how we desperately needed those professional fishing crews to be allowed to come and work in the inshore fleets, particularly around Northern Ireland and the west coast of Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member will also recall that, for the most part, we were treated with great courtesy and listened to. Our ideas, we believed, would be examined. But then, every single time, the things that we asked for were rejected out of hand. I implore the Minister to please be the one to break that cycle.

[David Duguid]

In my remarks, I asked for more constructive engagement. However, would the hon. Member join me and others in seeking an actual meeting with Ministers—I know, it is difficult enough for us Conservatives to get meetings with Ministers—and officials, and with key stakeholders from the industry who know the industry far better than we do?

[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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that ask, and I will certainly relay the feedback to the Secretary of State for DEFRA.

I will turn to the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and then I will come to the ask of the hon. Member for Strangford. As the Home Secretary set out in her letter to the industry, although it is a long-standing Government policy that overseas workers in UK waters needed visas, we accepted that there was a need to legislate for clarity. The fishing sector has been using transit visas erroneously, in our view, for a number of years without consequence, and it was vital to correct that given the labour abuse that we saw in some parts of the sector.

Foreign nationals coming to work in the UK, on land or on our waters, should comply with the immigration system. That includes the firms that are looking to hire those workers. I do not believe that is controversial, and the fishing industry is no exception. None the less, as a result of the clarification there is a transition that needs to be managed, as right hon. and hon. Members have said today.

[David Duguid]

I do not think anybody in this Chamber today would disagree on the need to avoid labour abuse. But would the Department—I understand that if there are ongoing investigations, this is not appropriate—provide details of any convictions of labour abuse that have taken place? Perhaps not today, but will he inform Members of where abuses have taken place? I am not aware of any in my constituency, but if I was, I and other hon. Members would be helping the Government to throw the book at those people. I suspect it is not as prevalent as some in the media might want to make out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I understand that, and I apologise if I gave the impression that this affects a small part of UK waters. Either way, the Home Office has taken a standard definition of UK waters and applied it for the purposes of our immigration system. Ostensibly, that sounds like a reasonable way to proceed, but I am happy to make further inquiries and revert to the hon. Gentleman if there is another way to do so within the confines of the law.

[David Duguid]

I suspect that the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) equally refers to somewhere such as Rockall. I do not think it is in anybody’s constituency, but it is so far away from the UK mainland that we think it should not apply. However, under the definition of the 12 nautical miles, the 12 nautical miles around Rockall—which is not inhabited—are impacted as well.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful for that. The point is registered. I will make inquiries and revert to all hon. Members present who are interested.

I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford about English language requirements. In our 2019 manifesto, we committed to prioritising people who have a good grasp of English in our visa system. The English language requirement is fundamental to successful integration into British society, helping visa holders to participate in community life and work. As the hon. Member noted, the level we set is B1, or lower intermediate English, from the common European framework of reference for languages. That level of English is applied for skilled worker visas without exception, unless the applicant can prove that they are from a majority English-speaking country, of which there are some that provide fishermen and women to UK businesses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes said that workers from Belize, which is an English-speaking country, come to the UK in some numbers. That level is not fluency, but it is the ability to understand and deal with the main points likely to arise in conversation on matters relating to work, school, leisure and so on. Without that level, applicants may struggle to support themselves and their families in the UK.

A good grasp of English can also be important in the workplace, particularly in busy or potentially dangerous environments, and to fulfil health and safety requirements. Workers who do not have a good command of English are more likely to be vulnerable to exploitation and less able to understand their rights. That is vital in a sector that, as we have just noted, has had some issues with labour market abuses.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Duguid Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Let us be very clear: the Migration Advisory Committee has advised against such a system. It would create complexity, with businesses having to work out which staff were on one visa and which were on another. Ultimately, we will be guided by independent advice, but I will be absolutely clear: this Government will create a migration system that works for Scotland and drives success in Scotland, but will not drive separation for Scotland.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that this Government will indeed design and implement a new, fit-for-purpose global immigration system that works for all regions and nations of our United Kingdom, and that, of course, Members on the SNP Benches have as much right as any Member in this place to work with the Government to help to achieve that?

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely, and the suggestion from the Scottish Government that it would be implemented via the Scottish tax code is rather defeated by the fact that Scottish Members of Parliament are on the Scottish tax code but work across our United Kingdom, and rightly so. So, yes, we will work with interest groups across Scotland to make sure this system works for Scotland as part of our United Kingdom, on a points-based basis. Again, we will focus on what works and what is successful, not on what pleases the separatist grievance agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Duguid Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to tackle county lines drugs gangs.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

18. What steps she is taking to tackle county lines drugs gangs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I gather that he was recently involved with his local constabulary in the apprehension of a drug dealer on East Parade in Harrogate—I am glad to see he is on the frontline too. He is right that we need a balanced approach to tackling the harm that drugs cause in our society. While that includes enforcement and disrupting the business model of those involved in promulgating this awful trade, we also have to provide support to young people to get them out of the habit, or even to prevent them from getting into the trade in the first place. Significant resources are being devoted to this, not least through the early intervention youth fund, which is putting hundreds of millions of pounds behind these kinds of projects.

[David Duguid]

The Home Office has a number of UK-wide initiatives to combat the range of problem drug use factors, including county lines—we might even refer to it as country lines, because it affects the whole United Kingdom, and there are people suffering from drug gangs coming as far into the north-east as Banff and Buchan. With the SNP’s stated policy of decriminalising possession and consumption of controlled drugs, what effect does the Minister think that such a differentiation in Scotland would have on these UK-wide efforts?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend was present at the Scottish Affairs Committee when we discussed this matter in some detail, so he will know that my view is that having a different regime in Scotland from that in England and Wales could cause significant problems for Scotland, not least because it would become a target for those wishing to promote the trade more easily and running county lines from England into Scotland. There are times when we are four nations and times when we are one country, and on drugs we should be one.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Duguid Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Home Office has provided up to £9 million of grant funding to 57 voluntary and community-based organisations specifically to help the vulnerable people to whom she refers. I was pleased to visit the East European Resource Centre and to have the opportunity to speak to a group of long-standing UK residents about the support available. She references the grey economy; we do not wish to see anybody working in the grey economy, but we recognise that there will be those who do. The Home Office is absolutely prepared to accept a wide range of evidence of people’s stay in the UK, including tenancy agreements or letters from health providers with whom they have been in contact. This is absolutely about working with individuals. The EU Settlement Resolution Centre is up and running, and is incredibly well staffed. I was pleased to visit it, to see the help that it can give to individuals.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

There is a seeming desire among some Opposition Members for the EU settlement scheme to be a complete failure, but will my right hon. Friend again confirm that this is a successful scheme and that take-up has been positive? If Opposition Members continue to tell their EU citizen constituents that they will not be able to apply, they are not being helpful.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The scheme has been a success, and it is shocking when hon. Members talk the scheme down. It is working well. We are determined to put in place support for those who are vulnerable, as I said. Later this week, we will see the latest statistics surrounding the scheme, which will show a considerable uplift from the figure of 800,000 reported from the end of May.

Migration Advisory Committee

David Duguid Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Sadly, many individuals across various sectors report that they do not feel that the Migration Advisory Committee actually listens to them. They feel that the committee has a rather supercilious stance and is basically not interested in the views of people running real businesses.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. Economists like to measure and count things. Does he agree that they need to come up with a way of counting shortages of different skills, rather than trying to put a measurement on the value of those skills? It is purely as simple as, “We have a shortage of these skills. We need those skills.”

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a crucial point, which I was going to come on to. The Migration Advisory Committee is trying to be too clever by half, rather than just making a straightforward assessment of the industries that have labour shortages, trying to assess what those shortages are as best it can, and setting a figure for the appropriate tier 3 or tier 2 provision, so that we can get the right people into those industries. Instead, the committee has gone off on a frolic of its own in trying to outline a plan to socially engineer a solution to what economists call the productivity puzzle.

As a Minister, I was deeply disappointed when the Migration Advisory Committee’s final report concluded in autumn 2018. I thought it was very poor and told us nothing new. Frankly, it read a bit like a student’s dissertation. It was a trot round the course of rather standard economic theories of comparative advantage and so on. I suppose that reflected the fact that it was ultimately written by economists and academics, who do not have real-world experience. At the heart of that report was undoubtedly an economist’s obsession with abstract theories of productivity—the so-called productivity puzzle to which we have to keep being subjected, because it is the current obsession of economists.

Put simply, the MAC believes that it can use immigration policy to socially engineer a solution to productivity. It recommends no provision at all for tier 3 migration—no provision for so-called lower-skilled jobs. In essence, its argument is that if we get rid of people on lower incomes and simply destroy the industries they work in, productivity will rise. It is a completely ill-conceived idea and will lead to economic contraction, which will affect particular parts of the country worse than others. Industries will be forced to close, as the committee’s report highlighted and acknowledged, but was indifferent to. Let us not forget that under Professor Manning’s world-view, the Home Secretary’s father would have been denied entry to our country. Mr Javid came here to work first in the cotton mills, and then on the buses. Had Professor Manning been in place at the time, the Home Secretary’s father would have been sent back and would not have been admitted to this country. That is a terrible indictment of the conclusions of the current MAC report.

The Migration Advisory Committee claims that its recommendations are consistent with our industrial strategy. I think that is wrong, as they violate two important principles in our industrial strategy. First, a principle of the industrial strategy is to make the UK the best place in the world to set up a business. Secondly, the strategy seeks balanced growth around the country, not growth concentrated simply in the home counties. A skills-based immigration system along the lines proposed by the Migration Advisory Committee will be bad for business and will damage and close certain industries. It will be bad for many parts of the country that depend on those industries for their wealth generation, including whole supply chains.

As I said, Brexit changes things fundamentally. We have to own this space assertively. We have to learn to value people who work on lower incomes and might have fewer formal qualifications, but who do vital work—be it in hospitality, agriculture or caring environments, and so on. First, we need to reform the Migration Advisory Committee so that we can give the Home Office better advice.

I conclude with two requests of the Minister. First, since the Migration Advisory Committee is an ad hoc committee and not established in statute, I see no reason why its current membership could not be extended to, say, 10 or 12 individuals. They are paid a day rate for attendance; it is not a salaried position. The Minister has an opportunity right now to extend the Migration Advisory Committee and broaden its skills base.

UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas

David Duguid Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure we will all sleep better for that—especially knowing that Her Majesty will now be in a position to give her full attention to the matter of visas for fishing crews.

I cannot now remember the point that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made, beyond the fact that I certainly agreed with it. [Interruption.] It was about academia—indeed. It is worth noting that those who serve on the Migration Advisory Committee and those who have been Ministers are all very learned people. I have long held the view that if we sent some of them out in fishing boats, and if we had more skippers in ministerial offices and in the Migration Advisory Committee, the problem would be solved next Tuesday.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

This is a similar point to the one that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) just made. It is often argued that the crew members who are much sought after in the Scottish fishing industry and in Northern Ireland are often regarded as low skilled. We can argue about whether they are high skilled or low skilled, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have a shortage of those very specific skills?

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the case. If the crews could be found in the fishing ports that the hon. Gentleman and I represent, we would not be here tonight because there would not be a problem. The fact is that for a whole variety of reasons, which have been rehearsed in the past, the crews are not there. It is difficult for the pelagic fleet and the whitefish fleet, because it pushes them out beyond territorial waters, but it makes the viability of the inshore fleet, which routinely fishes within the 12 mile limit, next to impossible.

I remind the Minister that, in July last year, she said:

“I recognise that the fishing industry will be best placed to take advantage of those future opportunities”—

that is how she earlier described the post-Brexit situation—

“if it has the workforce that it needs.”

It is manifestly still the case today, as I can see from my mailbag and email inbox, that the industry does not have the workforce it needs. The fact that there are so many hon. Members in the Chamber tonight at gone 11 o’clock bears further testimony to that.

The Minister went on to say:

“Two key points will be to the fore when we consider the industry’s future labour needs. First, as we leave the European Union, we will take back control of immigration and have an opportunity to reframe the immigration system…In making sure that that happens, we will need the best evidence available, which is why we have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the economic and social impacts of the UK’s departure from the EU and on how the UK’s immigration policy should best align with the Government’s industrial strategy. The committee will report in the autumn, and the Government will take full account of its recommendations when setting out their proposals for the future immigration system.”—Official Report, 11 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 1082.]

She went on to acknowledge the case that many of us made about the urgency of the matter—it was urgent in July last year.

I now wish to turn the House’s attention to the Migration Advisory Committee’s report of last September. The section entitled “Productivity, innovation, investment and training impacts” on page 2 of the executive summary includes an interesting paragraph—paragraph 14—which states:

“The research we commissioned showed that overall there is no evidence that migration has had a negative impact on the training of the UK-born workforce. Moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that skilled migrants have a positive impact on the quantity of training available to the UK-born workforce.”

That is a very small point, but I mention it because in the debate in July several hon. Members said that there was a real problem with the training available, and that it was because of that that we had had to resort, in the short to medium term, to bringing in non-EEA nationals.

One of the most disappointing parts of the committee’s report is that headed “Community impacts”, which is to be found on page 4 of the executive summary. It rates only nine lines, and the related part in the full report runs to some five pages only, most of which comprises graphs. It speaks about some of the issues, which the committee identifies as community impacts, and states:

“The impacts of migration on communities are hard to measure owing to their subjective nature which means there is a risk they are ignored.”

However, it goes on to talk about some things—for example, the impact on crime and on how people view their own communities—but there is not a word in that part about population levels, which is absolutely critical in most island and coastal communities to which the fishing industry is confined. There is nothing to be found about the fact that the inability of boats to go to sea has a massive impact on the shore-side industries, which in turn has a massive impact on the viability of schools, post offices and all sorts of local public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, we have also asked the MAC to look at a revision of the shortage occupation list. He will know that we have suggested the introduction of a separate shortage occupation list for Northern Ireland, as well as consulting on one for Wales, in addition to the separate list that we already hold for Scotland.

We need to be mindful that tying workers to particular employers or sectors can increase the risk of exploitation. I am sure hon. Members will be aware that recently four United Nations rapporteurs wrote to the Irish Government to point out that their scheme, which has been put in place in Ireland to bring in non-EU workers to work in the fishing industry there, is giving rise to forced labour and exploitation on Irish fishing vessels. There is evidence that laws on minimum wage, maximum hours and safety —the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is laughing as I say this—have been widely flouted.

[David Duguid]

On the subject of exploitation, I hope my right hon. Friend is looking forward, as I am, to her visiting my constituency in the near future to see the conditions in which a lot of non-EEA workers live and work. I would also like to bring her back to the numbers required in this case. In the horticultural sector, the Home Office has already made an allowance in the form of a pilot scheme for 2,500 people. Without getting into a debate about whether that is enough for that sector, that is twice as many as the number that we are talking about for this sector. The latest estimate I have from the Scottish White Fish Producers Association is that we currently have 800 non-EEA crew members, with 400 from the EU. After Brexit, that will be a total of 1,200, which is less than half the number that will be provided for the horticultural sector. Can such a number of visas be made available to see us through on a non-permanent basis while, at the same time, we develop skills locally?

[Caroline Nokes]

I have listened to my hon. Friend on this subject on many an occasion. He is a forceful and passionate advocate for the industry. On the seasonal workers scheme in the edible horticultural sector, it is important that we have the opportunity to evaluate the scheme and reflect on it, but I am certainly listening closely to the calls this evening for a similar scheme for fishing.

I am conscious that I only have a few minutes left, but I would like to focus attention on the White Paper, which, as I said, we published back in December. I have already indicated that we will have a year of engagement —we are already three months in. It is important to reflect on the fact that the MAC has already suggested that we reduce the skill level from RQF 6 to RQF 3 for those seeking to come to the UK, post the introduction of the new immigration system. As I said earlier, I am not for one moment suggesting that no skill is required to work in the fishing industry. Indeed, having spoken to people in the sector in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, I am full of admiration for those who work in what are extremely difficult, challenging and sometimes downright dangerous conditions. Having given that important clarification, I would like to repeat that the MAC advised that there should be no specific route for those undertaking jobs below RQF 3. We recognise, however, that after 45 years of free movement, many businesses and employers have come to rely on a steady stream of lower skilled migrant labour. We do not wish to create a cliff edge. Accordingly, the White Paper sets out our intention that as a transitional measure we will create a temporary visa that will allow migrants from low immigration risk countries to come to the UK for up to a year to work in jobs at any skill level.

The White Paper does not represent the Government’s last word on this topic; quite the reverse. It is the start of the conversation, not the end, and we are talking to every sector of the economy across every nation of the United Kingdom and every region of England. As I said earlier, Ministers and officials have held 45 meetings with more than 650 stakeholders, and that work will continue in the coming months. I confirm that it will include representatives of the fishing sector. I also hope that it will give me the opportunity to get out and about and visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid).

I have the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), with me this evening, and Members will be aware that the Fisheries Bill is making is progress through the legislative process. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)

David Duguid Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I will speak to new clause 36, but I also fully support everything that the hon. Member for Torfaen has said about amendment 21. I can be very brief, given what he has said. As was revealed earlier, I used to practise as an immigration lawyer; this was a decade ago. Back then, the immigration rules were horrendously complex, but since then there have been hundreds of changes to the immigration rules and they have multiplied in size. I cannot remember what the figure is, but the appendices have just about every letter of the alphabet in their title. The system is ludicrously complex. The issue is not just that the rules are complicated; as we have heard, the evidential requirements are also incredibly complicated.

It is easy enough to say that we hope the settled status scheme is not too complicated, but that is not an end to the matter. It will be complicated for many people to access. People also have to make decisions and understand whether they actually need to apply, and that could be hugely complicated for some people. Some people will not be sure whether they have British nationality. Some people will not understand whether their right to permanent residence under existing EU law means that they do or do not need to apply. There is the situation of Irish citizens, for example, in Northern Ireland. All sorts of people are already asking questions about how this system applies to them. It is not a straightforward matter.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

A number of constituents or residents in my constituency have come to me with the kinds of questions that the hon. Gentleman illustrates, and I, with my limited experience—certainly in comparison with his—have been able to clarify a lot of those cases as their Member of Parliament. Is that not something that we should all be doing as Members of Parliament?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It is fair to say that MPs can provide some basic help, but they are not immigration lawyers. All hon. Members have to be cautious to ensure that they do not hand out legal advice. A Member might be approached, for example, by someone who is entitled to British citizenship or to register as a British citizen. To set them off down the route of applying for settled status would be to do them a disservice. We have to be very careful. Although the settled status scheme in itself might appear to be reasonably straightforward, that is not the end of the matter.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. Another thing that I will say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is that, thankfully, one benefit of devolution—all those who were opposing devolution earlier should take note—is that people can choose a different path, and in Scotland we have not implemented LASPO. I think that LASPO is one of the most outrageous Acts of Parliament to have gone through this place. Thankfully, in Scotland, people will still be able to obtain immigration advice through legal aid. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to use that, rather than potentially getting himself into trouble if he makes mistakes with his immigration advice.

[David Duguid]

To clarify, I was advocating not that Members of Parliament should provide legal advice, but that they should signpost constituents to the relevant guidance on the Government website, for example.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Duguid Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I wanted to speak briefly to these amendments. First, I note how unusual and exciting it is to be debating substantive provisions of immigration law. One of the key points that I make throughout this process is that this is a rare occurrence. We get to what would usually be shoved into immigration rules or a statement of changes; it is then passed through Parliament, and the Bill becomes law without anyone realising that it is happening—never mind having a chance to debate it. Perhaps we could even suggest amendments to the shadow Minister to improve his draft new clauses. I welcome what he has done in proposing substantive immigration policy in a way that allows MPs to come and have a say. Our take on what he has said about the SAWS and the evidence we heard from National Farmers Union Scotland was that the pilot scheme was not enough. We welcomed the pilot, but 2,500 places are not enough. I think that the number that was mentioned that would be sufficient was 10,000. That is against the background that National Farmers Union Scotland was also absolutely and clearly in favour of retaining the free movement of people.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Coming from a constituency that is agricultural as well as fishing, I recognise a lot of the concerns that have been raised by National Farmers Union Scotland. Does the hon. Member agree that Andrew McCornick, the president of NFU Scotland, also stated, not in evidence to this Committee but in previous evidence, that he would like the immigration system to open up to employees from outside the EEA as well?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am happy to acknowledge that evidence. The two things are not inconsistent: to attain free movement of people we have got to have a seasonal agricultural workers scheme to allow access to labour from outside the EU as well. Even with free movement of people, there is still a huge recruitment problem. There are crops and fruit going unpicked.

As we have seen, countries from which farmers were able to recruit previously, such as Poland, have caught up. In fact, they have job offers from other parts of the EU. Subsequently, farmers were recruiting more from Romania, but again, the economy and wages there have caught up slightly and there are also alternative employment options elsewhere. So there is already a recruitment crisis, even though we have had free movement of labour. There must be a two-pronged approach here: retain free moment and at the same time have a proper seasonal agricultural workers scheme to allow farmers and others to recruit from outside the EU as well. The SAWS pilot is welcome but it is not enough: we need the free movement of people as well.

In other evidence, NFU Scotland stated that the proposals for a no-deal scenario were not remotely sufficient for its purposes. There is the strange three months, then a three-year visa, if you are successful. NFU Scotland thought that that would put employers at a competitive disadvantage. They would only be able to say to folk, “We are trying to recruit. You can come for three months and possibly you will be able to stay on beyond that”. They need people to have that guarantee up front. Some—but not enough—will be able to do that through the pilot.

On the two new clauses, there are things I would have done slightly differently, but that is what is good about having this debate. A lot of farmers will say that the six-month SAWS time limit in new clause 20 is not sufficient. With new clause 21, I hugely welcome the proposal for family to be allowed to accompany the workers here. That is not envisaged in the Government’s proposal for a one-year visa; also the Government have the “12 months on, 12 months off” idea, which a lot of employers understandably find absolutely ludicrous.

Our concern with new clause 21 is, again, the 12-month time limit; I also want further information about what the sponsorship licence looks like. One of the huge problems, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, is around the requirements to be a licensed sponsor. Many have found that to be hugely problematic and costly, and to involve red tape. I like the principle behind the ideas. I would have some difficulty in voting for them because I do not quite agree with everything that is in them, but I welcome the fact that we are having that debate.

I agree with the proposal in amendment 20. As I have said during the course of our debates, sometimes the criticisms made of free movement of people and, generally, of migration for work, and some of the problems flagged up in relation to that are not problems with migration itself, but problems with labour market enforcement, labour standards and the enforcement of existing laws. It is pivotal that we marry up what we are doing in the immigration system with what we are doing in terms of labour market enforcement. One silver lining from the Immigration Act 2016 was the introduction of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement. There is a question whether his remit is wide enough and whether the resources are there to do the job properly, but I fully welcome amendment 20 and the intention of making sure that we do a much better job of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the temporary work visas are a transitional measure, but we will be looking carefully at that and listening to the advice that we have received in the evidence sessions for this Committee and more widely. As the Immigration Minister, I am conscious that people from a huge range of sectors are beating a path to my door to outline the particular circumstances of their industries, and I fully expect that to continue over the next 12 months. I do not expect people to beat a path to my door, however, so we are going out and engaging actively with different sectors. We are holding roundtables in every part of the country, and across every part of industry, so that we have a top-range understanding of the challenges.

[David Duguid]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to engaging around the UK on future immigration policy, particularly during the Easter period, when she will be in my constituency. Does she agree that new clauses 20 and 21 are limited in that they apply only to EEA and Swiss personnel, and that future Government policy would be to introduce a level playing field for anybody, from anywhere, assuming that they have the skills we require?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Duguid Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are having issues with benefits or with the Department for Work and Pensions, and I would be happy to take that up with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As far as the settlement scheme is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that it has not yet been launched; it is in a testing phase. More than 100,000 people have participated in the testing phase and not a single one has been rejected.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on Members across all parties of the House to be clear to all our constituents from the EU that their rights to stay in the UK will be protected, deal or no deal?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is of course right. The Government have been very clear that EU citizens living here will be able to stay; more than that, we want them to stay. That is why the settlement scheme has been designed to be easy and straightforward. As the Home Secretary has just indicated, so far the applications of more than 100,000 people have been through the testing phase and not a single one has been refused.