UK Entry Visas

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

That is a very real concern and I will touch on Brexit just before I finish.

It is no wonder that I heard a very senior official from the African Union, who himself had had to produce a marriage certificate and bank statements even though he was invited to attend an event by the Lord Mayor of London, tell one such meeting recently that he is not surprised when he sees business class flights from Addis Ababa to Brussels full, but similar flights to the UK more than half empty. These are not examples of a UK that is open for business. These are not examples of a global Britain. These are not examples of a Home Office that has abandoned the hostile environment. These are examples of failure across the board: failure of policy and failure of practice.

Will the Minister confirm what the Government’s policy on entry visas actually is? Can she explain why so many stakeholders feel that an effective travel ban is in place for certain countries and regions, particularly Africa and Asia? Can she explain why the reality experienced by so many sponsoring organisations is so different from the rhetoric of global Britain? Will she confirm or deny whether there is any connection with the net migration target and the rates of rejection for visitor visas? Do the Government really believe that everything on these islands is so wonderful that they must presume that everyone who applies for a visa secretly wants to abscond; that musicians, authors, academics, scientists, business owners and senior civil servants will take one look at the streets of mother Britannia paved with gold, and abandon their families and careers for a job in the UK’s gig economy? Laughable although that idea is, that is the impression that is being given.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

As a representative of Scotland’s festival city and as the constituency MP for Edinburgh’s book festival, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate? Is he aware of any evidence of invited artists absconding during planned visits or festivals, which might explain why things are so much more difficult these days?

[Patrick Grady]

The short answer to that question is no. Perhaps the Minister has that evidence. Certainly, when I have tried to ask for similar evidence in written questions I have had very little back, because the Government do not seem to keep a track of this data. It is simply a hostile environment hangover.

The policy has to change and that means the practice should also change. The Government need to do more to respect the bona fides of sponsoring organisations. It is not in the interests of festival organisers, universities, churches, or, for example, the City of London Corporation for their guests to abscond. The Government should be prepared, either as a matter of policy or through some kind of formal accreditation, to start from a principle that guests invited by such organisations are coming for good reasons and can be expected to abide by their visa conditions and return in due course.

The Incorporated Society of Musicians has recommended that if freedom of movement for musicians cannot be preserved after Brexit, then the UK and EU should develop a two-year multi-entry touring visa for UK and EU musicians. I know that the City of London Corporation also expects to publish a major report on visas and immigration in the very near future, and I hope the Minister will look out for that and pay attention to its recommendations. I will also send her extensive documentation from the Scotland Malawi Partnership on this issue, which she may already have seen, and I look forward to her response. I hope, most importantly, that she will be willing to meet some of the all-party groups that are particularly interested in this issue. I have mentioned the all-party group on Malawi. I am also secretary of the all-party group on Africa, and I know that they would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not have those precise figures to hand, but the Home Office is working closely, and will continue to work closely, with the all-party group led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) on this precise subject, because it has raised concern across the House.

Everyone entering the UK has to meet the same set of entry clearance requirements. Some nationals of non-EEA countries need a visa to come to the UK; others must demonstrate that they meet our entry clearance requirements on arrival at the border. All applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, according to their individual merits and against the part of the immigration rules that relates to why someone is coming to the UK. Many categories of temporary migration, such as students or those coming to work in the UK, are required to obtain an entry clearance before coming, regardless of their nationality. This allows assessments to be made before someone travels.

I am committed to ensuring that the UK visa service is high performing, customer focused and continually improving, in terms of both products available and the route for application, and there is always room to improve as we respond to evolving demands and requirements, harness new technology and reflect customer experiences and needs. Globally, our international network of over 300 visa application centres manages applications from customers from over 200 countries. In the year to June 2018, 2.7 million visas were issued, and 96% of non-settlement applications were processed within 15 days.

The UK offers a priority visa service that sees applications normally processed within five days in nearly 200 locations. The UK is also the only country to offer a 24-hour service in China and a same-day service in India. Access UK, a new online application service, has been successfully rolled out to visit visa customers in over 200 countries and 19 different languages. This new system means a faster, more streamlined and increasingly automated application process for customers.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned the creative industries. Of course, that sector is a major cultural and economic success story for the UK. It is a high-value, high-growth sector worth £91.8 billion to the UK economy in 2016. The Government as a whole are committed to supporting and promoting a thriving live music industry and ensuring the continued growth of a vital and vibrant sector. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the UK continues to welcome artists and musicians who come here to perform. They make an important contribution to our creative sector, which is a major cultural and economic success story. The Home Office is working with the sector and with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to better understand the needs of the creative industries, clarify visa requirements, and ensure that processes are as smooth as possible.

[Deidre Brock]

Does the Minister accept the reports from cultural festival organisers across the UK that obtaining visitor visas has been increasingly difficult in the last few years?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am aware of that, and I am certainly aware of some of the challenges that have faced a number of cultural festivals, especially during the summer. Although this was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), performers arriving from Ireland were particularly affected. We are continuing to review the existing operation and legislation to ensure that the tier 5 route is implemented for, in particular, those who come here to work in the creative industries. Across Government, we are working with the sector to understand the concerns and address them accordingly. In response to its feedback, work is under way to identify an acceptable approach to the tier 5 concession route.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi, and his work with that country. I recently accepted an invitation from the Africa all-party parliamentary group to attend a meeting that it is hosting, I think, next month. Today I received another invitation, from the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who was particularly keen for me to meet representatives of various gurdwaras in his constituency. I recognise the need for me, as Immigration Minister, to engage with APPGs, and I am always happy to do so.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the visa application centre in Lilongwe is open five days a week. We offer a priority visa service, with a five to seven-day turnaround time for applications. We also offer an on-demand mobile service. Visa application centre staff travel to the customer’s chosen location to accept applications and assist with the process. In the year ending in June 2018, there were 2,515 decisions on applications from Malawian nationals, and 78%, or 1,963, were accepted. Most of the visas granted were for visitors or students, but our latest online performance statistics show that 98% of visitor and student visas are issued within 15 days.

Ending Exploitation in Supermarket Supply Chains

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for tabling this important motion, but is it not sad that, in these supposedly enlightened times, we are still having to discuss the brutal practices of slavery? Forced labour, domestic servitude, people-trafficking—there is nothing modem about this. It is an age-old story of individuals being dehumanised and exploited by fellow human beings.

Workers have hard-fought rights in the United Kingdom, but it is easy for a blind eye to be turned to something nasty that is happening to people further down the line: those whose labour helped to put those shiny products on our supermarket shelves. When profit alone is king, there are always unscrupulous businesses that will callously treat people as commodities. Unless there is credible action to stop it, there will always be brands that will do the shady deals and say, “Nothing to see here,” or, “Nothing to do with me.” We need to shine a light on forced labour and the exploitation of workforces, and hold the companies at the top of the line responsible, too. In that way, we can drive these sickening practices from the supply chain.

I am not just talking about the appalling cases of people trafficked into slavery, such as those we have heard about involving Burmese and Cambodian crews on Thai fishing boats. Millions of workers are forced to labour for almost nothing in appalling conditions that violate their human rights. Oxfam’s excellent research reveals the shocking poverty and human rights abuses that are behind many common products on our supermarket shelves. For example, there are South African women farmers who pick grapes for our wine but cannot even feed themselves and their families. The highest-paid supermarket chief executive will earn more in less than five days than those women do in their entire lifetimes—let that sink in. Where women are the main labourers, the risk of exploitation is even worse.

The Oxfam researchers found that less than 6% of the consumer price was reaching small-scale farmers and growers, with supermarkets capturing over half the value of the products, which is more than in the Netherlands, Germany and the United States. Profits paid in dividends had dramatically risen in the UK since the 1970s. Business models are ever more strongly focused on increasing returns for shareholders instead of looking after the interests of all stakeholders.

The Modern Slavery Act was a much-needed, welcome piece of legislation. I commend the Government for the action that they have taken so far, and the Prime Minister for her own commitment on this issue. Those, I think, are efforts that we can all support.

Some supermarkets have taken steps to identify and deal with issues in their supply chains. I note, for example, the efforts of Marks & Spencer to improve transparency with an interactive supply chain map, including information on trade union membership recognition from its primary suppliers. There are also good news stories, such as the growing success of the Fairtrade market in the UK. More agreements are being reached with the big supermarkets to expand their Fairtrade products, which is fantastic news, but that, unfortunately, makes the news that we have just heard about the decision of Sainsbury’s to pull out of its commitment to Fairtrade even more disappointing.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the efforts of the Scottish Fair Trade Forum to encourage more suppliers to take on Fairtrade, and to persuade small as well as larger businesses to supply such products in their shops?

[Deidre Brock]

I certainly do. I am well aware of that, having attended Fairtrade coffee mornings in my constituency for the last couple of years. It is great to see people really getting behind the Fairtrade initiative.

Clearly, as the Government recognise, the picture is patchy, and there are many issues relating to how the measures in the Modern Slavery Act are working on the ground. Encouraging transparency and fairness is simply not enough. We know that agriculture, fishing and forestry businesses are amongst the highest-risk offenders in respect of forced labour worldwide, but a year after the Act came into force, only 19% of agriculture companies were doing all that is required to comply with section 54. Even when businesses do comply, it can be seen as little more than a box-ticking exercise—very little effort is made to get to the root of the problem. Companies must be made, not just encouraged, to comply. As all who have suffered at the hand of austerity since 2007 would agree, light-touch regulation is not enough.

The discovery of slavery in supply chains should hit businesses where it hurts most, and highlighting their brands, their profitability and those all-important dividends should be key. We should be shouting from the rooftops the names of those who take a stand, and holding liable all those who do not. We all have a responsibility to ensure that, wherever they come from, workers who help to put food and other products on our shelves earn enough to enjoy a decent, dignified standard of living.

British Citizenship Fees: Children

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman has been a champion of this cause on the Home Affairs Committee. I agree that there should be no fee for children who have been in the care system. The early-day motion that I tabled referred to that and I will address it momentarily.

The Minister met me and representatives from PRCBC and Amnesty to hear our arguments. I am grateful that she was willing to listen. I want to address some of the arguments the Home Office continues to use to justify the current fees regime.

First, the Home Office asserts that the fee reflects the benefit received by the child in being able to register. That totally misunderstands the situation. Parliament has decided that these kids should formally be British citizens—it was not a benevolent act of the Home Office. It is not any more legitimate to charge these citizens for the benefits they obtain as UK citizens than it would be to charge anyone in this Chamber or our own children. It seems the Home Office is conflating registration with the naturalisation of adults who choose to make the UK their home and ask for citizenship. That is totally different. Registration was put in place to compensate or to fill some of the gaps left by the end of citizenship by place of birth. The Home Office is subverting Parliament’s clear intentions by making it impossible to access those rights.

Secondly, the Home Office states that citizenship is not necessary—people can apply for leave to remain instead, which is an astonishing argument. How many hon. Members would be willing to give up their British nationality and settle for applying for leave to remain? There is no equivalence and it is outrageous to suggest that there is. That is particularly the case given that some of the kids affected would face a hellish path to settlement, which the Minister seems to be suggesting is a suitable alternative. Those not born here would require multiple applications at a cost of several thousand pounds on top of the cost to their wellbeing caused by the insecurity and stress of such a situation. It is not acceptable to say to someone whom Parliament says should be considered a British citizen, “Never mind, you can apply for leave to remain in your own country.”

Thirdly, the Home Office argues that it is fair for those using the immigration and nationality system to pay a contribution towards the broader costs of the immigration and nationality system, so that British taxpayers more generally do not have to. In some circumstances, I accept that that is true, but not here. The sum of money is not fair. As we have heard, it is huge and prohibitive, and we are talking about children. More fundamentally, these children are not migrants who chose to come in, but people entitled to citizenship. They were either born here or came here and grew up here without having had a choice.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I have a young constituent who has been refused citizenship after applying and her family paying that £1,012, despite the fact that her father is Scottish, she was born in Scotland and she has never lived anywhere else. Does my hon. Friend agree—developing the points he has been making—that it is difficult not to see this as profiteering by the UK Government to fund their hostile policies?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely agree that it is profiteering. The Home Office tends to deny it is profiteering because it spends the money elsewhere, but the fact that profits are reinvested does not mean that they are not profits in the first place. It is outrageous to take the approach that the Home Office is suggesting. It is also contradictory, because it is saying that kids entitled to British citizenship should pay more so that other British citizens get to pay less. Both groups are British citizens. There is equivalence between them. The Home Office argument almost suggests that one form of citizenship is superior to another.

In conclusion, the Home Secretary has to all intents and purposes deprived far too many kids of their right in law to register as British by setting a fee for registering citizenship, which he has described as,

“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.

There are not even any fee waivers for those kids brought up in care, never mind a broader opportunity to apply for a reduction where the fee is unaffordable.

Non-EEA Visas: Inshore Fishing

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for bringing this important debate. I will mention a few points raised by him and by other hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the concerns he had received directly from fishermen. Those personal testimonies and experiences illustrate for us—better than the very good briefings we have received on this matter—the precise nature of the problems, including the Government’s policy on the 12-mile limit and their attitude to migration. I will come on to that later. The fishermen also called for the more customised approach for which the Scottish Government have also called for some time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is an excellent constituency MP, and he spoke with his usual passion on how much support there is across the board for non-EEA workers coming here, and of their being in many ways the lifeblood of fishing communities up and down the coast. He also mentioned how many allies the proposal has, and insisted that the UK Government begin to act on it.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) highlighted the difficulties that the industry has experienced in recent years in attracting local youngsters to the profession. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave us the Northern Irish perspective, as always, but also a personal viewpoint, given his family associations with the industry. He called for the UK Government to acknowledge the industry’s simple point: that it needs people who can do the job now, not in 10 years’ time. He also said that all in the UK are on the same hymn sheet.

However, it is worth remembering that Ireland is a part of the British Isles, and because of its independence it can in many ways make better choices specific to its own requirements; that contrasts with the situation that we are discussing, in which it seems that one size fits all. As I said, that is worth remembering. The hon. Members for Angus (Kirstene Hair) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) reminded us of the UK Government’s role, still, in turning on and off the tap of this vital labour source for Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom and Great Britain without due regard for the devastating impact on small coastal communities.

It is very good to see cross-party consensus on the need for concessions on visas for non-EU crew to keep our fishing fleets safely on the seas. A sticking plaster over a rotten immigration policy it may be, but it is a much-needed one. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, along with others in this place, has been championing this cause for some time, and it is good to see more recognition now of the absurdity of boats being tied up for lack of crew when people are available to do the job.

One of the things that sticks in my craw most about the rules on transit visas is that they squeeze hardest the smaller boats—those with one or two crew members, fishing daily from local ports. They struggle the most when staff are hard to find. The recent fishing White Paper said that the Government would encourage growth in the small boat sector. If they mean what they say for once, fixing this issue would be a good start.

I hope that the Security Minister and, through him, the Immigration Minister will reflect on the strength of the evidence that has already been presented and the importance of the fishing industry to Scotland and will act with greater urgency than they have indicated they are willing to do so far. It is clear from the figures that we have heard how dependent the whole industry is on non-EEA staff, so concessions should be the easiest decision that they have ever made. There are precedents: the offshore wind farm sector has a concession to allow non-EEA crew to operate inside 12 miles.

There is surely no need to wait for the autumn report from the Migration Advisory Committee, particularly as the MAC does not seem to be flexible itself when it comes to recognising shortage occupations and sectoral needs in Scotland. The issue seems to be that deckhands are not regarded as skilled by the great and the good who decide such things. I suggest to anyone who defines being a member of a fishing crew as unskilled work that they take time out this summer and get some work experience on a Scottish fishing vessel. When they have successfully mended a torn net in the face of a howling storm, they can come back to us and tell us that it is unskilled.

Fishing is not an industry that easily fits into a tick-box system for staff, but it clearly takes unique skills, experience and a certain type of character to do this job. The Scottish White Fish Producers Association, which knows a bit more about it than we do in this place, identified the need to recruit fishermen from outside the EU and found a similar skillset in fishermen from the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Skilled fishermen who are willing to leave their families and come to do a tough job over here should be welcomed and given all the rights and protections of our EU workers.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is summing up the debate fantastically well. I want to reiterate that I have prepared a press release into which I will insert the name of the Minister who lifts the pen and makes the change, with high praise. I hope that a Government who need some good news will at least grasp this one little straw and ensure that what we have asked for happens, and this summer. This is not a question of reports; we know what the arguments are. It has just got to happen.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. I certainly hope that something will happen along those lines, although I remind my hon. Friend that last November the then Immigration Minister, now the Minister without Portfolio, promised to look into the possibility of running a pilot scheme in which seasonal workers coming from non-EEA countries could work for nine months to help the fishing industry on the west coast of Scotland. As of yet, I think, we have heard nothing further about that proposal.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I do not know how many Immigration Ministers we have dealt with and had this same discussion with. We have to educate them, tell them, inform them—whatever. We get the promise of jam tomorrow, and before we know what is happening, they have been promoted, sacked, moved on or whatever and we are dealing with another one. It is groundhog day on this issue with each and every different Immigration Minister; and in a few months’ time, given the rate of attrition in this Government, we will probably have someone else again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very difficult for the industry to deal with the revolving door of Ministers who constantly have to be informed of the important parts of their brief that they need to get up to speed with and deal with. Then they need to go round and visit all the different and important stakeholder groups and get to know them. Things are very difficult for the industry in those circumstances.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the contribution that she is making to the debate. Does she agree that the pilot scheme that has been intimated to us on a number of occasions—indeed, the last occasion was the last meeting that we had—is something that we are all very eager to see coming into place? It is one that the industry and the sector will work with, as the hon. Lady said, and elected representatives will also endeavour to ensure that it works. All the safety and all the employment rights that are important for it to go forward are things that the industry is committed to. If ever you wanted a good scheme, do the pilot scheme now.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree. There is nothing to be lost by looking at this proposal. There is a general will across parties and across the industry to make the pilot scheme work. I am sure that if a Minister fronted up and actually committed to it, all of us would be cheering to the rafters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar points out.

I was referring to skilled fishermen and the fact that they are willing to come here to do this very difficult job. They should be welcomed and given all the rights and protections that EU workers have. The SWFPA chief executive, Mike Park, says that people have presented the case to the MAC and to various Immigration Ministers over the last few years, but on each occasion they were

“basically told to go away”.

A new scheme for non-EEA workers would be lifeblood to our fishing fleets—we have heard the evidence that it could take 10 to 15 years to get fully staffed from local sources—but it would of course be even more sensible for the Immigration Minister to accept that the one-size-fits-all immigration system is not the right solution. If she is worried that any sensible concession for fishing might open the floodgates for other shortage occupations, the solution is not to bolt the door and hope that they go away. Perhaps she ought to ask how the MAC compiles its list, why so many sectoral cases can be made and whether the committee’s approach to immigration is working in the best interests of the economy. Reducing dependency on migration by killing an industry that wants to employ people hardly seems a sensible way to go about things.

The root cause of the problem is surely inflexible, old-fashioned British bean-counting bureaucracy. The UK Government cannot blame Brussels. As has been pointed out, this mess was made entirely in Whitehall. Defying logic, the Conservatives continue to pander to those who want to cut the number of foreigners in the country, setting policies that satisfy those who blame immigrants for all the economic woes that this Government have presided over. That approach is a disaster for the Scottish economy and the demographic challenges that we face. As an inquiry by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs found, the populations of more than one third of Scotland’s local authority areas are projected to decline, and future population growth in Scotland is expected to depend entirely on inward migration. We have the space and the need to welcome more people who want to live and work here, yet we are enforcing net migration targets that are entirely counterproductive.

The ever more hostile approach to immigration has not only been damaging economically; it has been distasteful and inhumane and it reeks of racism. Despite all the evidence of the benefits that migrants bring, the Tories have doggedly stuck to the notion that cutting numbers is more important than meeting need. I continue to hope for a change of heart from the Government, or for devolved control of immigration policies so that we can do that better in Scotland, but this concession for fishing would not even ruffle the feathers of the people counters in the Home Office. The number of skilled fishermen affected would be some 1,200 or so—a number far too small to make a dent on its silly targets, yet crucial enough to have a massive knock-on impact for coastal communities across Scotland.

I urge the Government to do the right thing for the fishing industry for once. Our fishing communities need flexibility from the immigration system if they are to survive. They need support from this Government through their currently reserved powers on immigration, not intransigence. The need and the solution are clear. Decisive action would be welcome.

Fishing Industry: Visas for Non-EEA Citizens

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

If anybody should know it would be the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, as its members are the people who are completely immersed in and engaged with the industry. They know what they talk about, so when they say 10 years, it is pretty clear that that will be a reasonable estimate. I would have to say that 10 years is too long to wait. Another 10 weeks or 10 months might be manageable, but if it is 10 years, these boats will no longer be there. There will no longer be the need in 10 years, one way or another.

I understand that the Minister feels that she is caught between a rock and a hard place in respect of her party’s manifesto commitments at the last general election, particularly in relation to the cap on immigration numbers—for net migration, that is. We have discussed this previously, so I understand her position, although I personally doubt whether a scheme of this sort would actually make any difference to that cap. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view about that.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that the industry finds itself in a real bind in that fishing is a skilled occupation? As the Scottish Affairs Committee heard in its immigration inquiry, it requires considerable amounts of training, but the Migration Advisory Committee rejected the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation request to place fishing on the shortage occupation list in 2010, apparently because the workers did not have the paper qualifications to show that they were skilled.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, that does come to the heart of it. It is the question of regarding deck hands as unskilled labour. When I last met the Minister, I reminded her of Mike Tyson’s great expression that everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face. It is a bit like that for deck hands and their skill level. Everybody is seen as being unskilled until they are out in a force 10 gale with the trawl doors open having to fish. That is when we understand the real skill we are talking about here.

Perhaps I can help the Minister out, because I have become much more interested in last year’s Conservative party manifesto than I had previously been, and I found a little piece that might assist her. It states:

“Decades of profound economic change have left their mark on coastal communities around Britain. We will continue to ensure these communities enjoy the vitality and opportunity they deserve.”

If that commitment is anything more than warm words, we really do need urgent action from the Minister.

I want the Minister to understand why this matters so much to communities such as that which I represent. The economy in Shetland is one third fishing-dependent, so the numbers of people who work on the boats are not massive, but for every job on a boat, several jobs onshore are supported. If the boats cannot be crewed safely, they do not go to sea and they do not catch the fish. That means that people do not need to buy the fuel, to get the nets mended, and to have the engineering and electrical support that they need, and as no fish are caught, there are no jobs for the processers who deal with the fish after they are landed. That is why this matters. It is the money that keeps businesses going. It is the money that goes into shops, that supports lawyers, doctors and accountants, that keeps children going to the school, and that keeps people living in places such as this. That is why this matters to us today.

I quote again the fishing constituent who emailed me to whom I referred. He said:

“We land 100% of our catch in Scottish ports, we source 100% of our food stores, nets and rope, wires, trawl doors, chandlery, fuel, shore engineers and electrical support plus many other sundries locally in Shetland and other Scottish ports so why are we expelled from the 12 mile limit?”

I would like to hear the Minister answer to that question this evening.

Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Austin.

In many ways, our debates over the Windrushers have been too small, too fixated on destroyed immigration documents or on who knew what when. Like those of EU citizens, the interests of the Windrush citizens have not been given the attention they should have been afforded; they have been afterthoughts as far as too many UK politicians are concerned. The political game has seemed more important than the people whose lives are affected, and the point scoring more important than sorting the matter out.

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

The debates are too small in another way, too. They are about a group of cases regarding the symptoms of a policy malfunction, not about the policy malfunction itself. It is not, as was suggested earlier, simply a structural problem in the Home Office. The anti-immigration rhetoric of successive UK Governments has created an environment of xenophobic mistrust, hate and fear. The “go home” vans that the Prime Minister created in her previous post of Home Secretary were a development from Gordon Brown’s “British jobs for British workers”. We know, too, that the Government of Clement Attlee was not the benign, welcoming and inclusive regime it has recently been painted as. We know that the Ministers in that Government wanted immigration to be a temporary phenomenon. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on that, although I welcome many of his very measured remarks on the topic.

Racism runs deep in the political psyche here. A bias is embedded in the minds of many politicians that will not easily be dislodged. Windrush is not some isolated case, and it is not an aberration or a deviation from the norm. It fits right into the institutional racism of this place. From the attempts of Attlee’s Ministers to turn the ship away to the Immigration Act 1971, and on to the vicious, hostile environment of the current Government, there is a thread of hate linking the attitudes of the generations. Those attitudes have driven public perceptions too, in the casual racism we all too often see. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) can testify to that, I believe, with the appalling flood of bile that is directed at her.

Even with that evidence so easily available to us, all the attitudes persist here, and that has driven the debate on a number of issues, not least of which has been the debate on our relationship with the EU. For all that nonsense about that bus with the promise to pay the NHS millions every week, the main driver of the leave debate was racist. It was an argument of exceptionalism—an opinion that we are somehow better than everyone else. It has continued into the aftermath too, with the Government’s disregard for the worries of EU citizens concerned for their future here. Treated as pawns, they have been left with no certainty about their position post-Brexit. People who have contributed to our communities, paid their taxes, made society better, and built lives and futures here have been dispossessed by a Government who seem determined to fight Agincourt again.

Three million people who—like the Windrush generation —live, work, study, pay taxes and contribute to society here have had their lives thrown into question. EU citizens have been packing up and leaving ahead of Brexit: shutting down businesses, resigning from the NHS and leaving their research labs and universities. That damages Scotland. We need the people who will help run our services, build businesses, support our academic sector and build our future. People who come to share Scotland are as welcome as they are necessary, and we need them.

The Government’s attitude is disgraceful. They have targets for deporting immigrants. Imagine that: those are not targets as in, “This person or those people should not be allowed to stay”, but targets as in, “8,337 a year”. What could possibly be the driver of that, other than racism, a sense of exceptionalism and an attitude that we are somehow better than others?

[Simon Hoare]

I fear that the hon. Lady is falling into the trap I alluded to in my speech of conflating “legal” and “illegal”. I think most people in this country, including legal migrants, would say that any Government has a duty and responsibility to ensure that everybody who is here is here legally. If that means setting targets to remove people who should not be here, most people support that, irrespective of their national heritage.

[Deidre Brock]

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Right hon. and hon Members have made comments about Gypsy Travellers in debates here that have caused my mouth literally to drop open in astonishment and horror. There has been case after case in my constituency office of the most appalling treatment of EU and non-EU nationals alike by UK Visas and Immigration and the Home Office. My contention is that those attitudes come from successive UK Governments’ attitudes towards the issue of immigration as a whole.

Successive UK Governments have created an atmosphere of mistrust and fear, and they are proud of it—the Prime Minister even praises the “hostile environment”. They thought that they had tapped into a source of votes by painting immigrants as some kind of threat to an imaginary British way of life. Now Windrush is blowing up the dust of the UK’s imperial past. People who came to these islands as British citizens are being deported. People who came here half a century ago are being told to go home. The vans may be gone, but the attitude has not. They are being told to go back to countries they would not recognise now. Their children and grandchildren are also targeted—people who were born in the UK and have never lived anywhere else. Some have already been deported, some have declared themselves stateless to avoid deportation and many more are living in fear that their lives are about to be utterly broken. These people came here when there were labour shortages. They worked, paid their taxes and built lives and communities. They had children who worked, paid their taxes and built on that legacy. They have grandchildren who are doing the same.

The UK is unlikely to change any time soon, but Scotland needs immigrants—we need population growth, and we need the energy and the impetus that comes with them. Our country is damaged by the right-wing xenophobia of deportation, document checks and fear-mongering. EU citizens and Windrush people should not be discouraged or deterred; they should be welcomed and encouraged. This debate is less than it should be—it should be an in-depth and unflinching analysis of the continuing racism of the body politic here. That is our shame and our disgrace, and we should not be content to hand it on to future generations.

Vote 100 and International Women’s Day

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to follow that wonderful speech by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for which I thank her.

On International Women’s Day, there is certainly cause to celebrate women who have achieved great things, as well as remembering the women who are still striving to change the world. For example, there is cause to celebrate the career of Anne Glover, a biologist who was Scotland’s first chief scientific adviser and later became chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission, again being the first to hold the position. Professor Glover is about to become the next president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) would be interested to hear about Victoria Drummond, who was the first woman marine engineer, the first woman to serve as a merchant navy chief engineer, the first woman to hold a Board of Trade certificate as a ship’s engineer, the first woman member of the Institute of Marine Engineers, and the first woman to receive the Lloyd’s War Medal for Bravery at Sea for her courage under fire in world war two.

Or, we can talk about Roza Salih, Amal Azzudin, Ewelina Siwak, Emma Clifford, Jennifer McCarron, Toni Henderson and Agnesa Murselaj. As schoolgirls, they shook the country, demanding better treatment for child asylum seekers and an end to dawn raids on families. They got movement—the UK Government stopped the policy of detaining children for immigration removal purposes in 2010—but none of them would claim total victory, I think. Those “Glasgow Girls” are all young women now, and it is to be hoped that they will continue to make a difference in their lives and the lives of others. They are already impressive and I hope we hear much, much more about them.

There are legions of women who have proven their ability in many, many fields, and there are many more who are proving that now. Being a woman is not a design error; nor is it a blessing without measure. Women are, quite simply, human beings. All around the world, though, there are examples of women being treated unfairly for the simple crime of being a woman, and we have heard some examples today. I think, though, that we can be too smug in suggesting that that is something that thrives elsewhere and has no foundation here. The “Time’s Up” and #MeToo revelations have shown that sexism is deeply embedded in our culture—that it is seen as simply a part of life and that women are expected just to deal with it.

We see it in this House: a juvenile, grinning idiocy that is sometimes so offensive; the smugness of a minority of men who think that supposedly clever point scoring proves something; an anti-intellectual nonsense that makes this continuing debate so tiring. There are men in this House who have a record of opposing progressive politics, without substantive argument but with plenty of bluster and filibuster, opposing equality as a playground joke. Like others, I am sure, I am tired of engaging with men with so little—so very little—to offer and am pleased that they represent a tiny percentage of the men I encounter.

I encourage all Members to watch the video of the debate on misogyny as a hate crime in Westminster Hall yesterday. If they do, they will see an intervention that illustrates very well what I have just described, but they will also see several excellent and important contributions that are really worth digesting. In particular, I recommend the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). The direct manner of her speech added a clarity that makes a harsh point so much more effective.

As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said in that debate, we seem to have come to a point where very often it is women, rather than men, who are expected to address misogyny. I hope that this year turns that around. I do have hope for Scotland’s politics in that regard. We have a woman First Minister, who is an extremely effective politician, a woman leader of the Opposition in Holyrood and a woman head of our civil service. We have a gender-balanced Cabinet in the Scottish Government already, and a large number of very good women in local government. It is not so much a case that change is coming, more that change is already happening, and Scottish politics is being rebalanced.

In this world where the President of the United States excuses juvenile offensiveness by claiming that it is just the talk in which men indulge in the changing room at the gym, and where Members of this House are falling short of decency, leaving the staff of this place feeling unable to raise complaints, it is surely time to clean the stables. I ask all Members to take that on board, as I know that they will.

Salisbury Incident

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My first concern must be the incident in hand and the safety of the people in the area around the incident. There will come a time for attribution, and there will be further consequences and further information to follow. Now, however, I am concerned about the incident and its consequences.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The circumstances surrounding these attacks are extremely worrying, particularly the fact that they constitute a potentially serious threat to public safety—although I am relieved to note that the chief medical officer considers there to be a low risk to public safety now. The emergency services have done a fantastic job, putting their safety on the line to ensure that Mr Skripal and his daughter were stabilised as soon as possible. We are pleased to hear that the police officer’s condition has improved and that he is now able to communicate. Our thoughts are with his and Mr Skripal and his daughter’s family and friends at this time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) put questions to the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday that I want to put to the Home Secretary today. How do we protect human assets such as Mr Skripal in this country? Will this type of scenario lead to a review of how we best protect such people across the United Kingdom? Considering Mr Skripal’s background, he was at high risk of being the victim of an attempted assassination, so does the Home Secretary know how the planning of such an attack was able to slip through the net of the UK intelligence services? What steps is she taking to ensure that those who are at risk living in the UK are properly protected?

Earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary stated that the Government would respond appropriately should evidence emerge that implies state responsibility. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that she has had, and is continuing to have, discussions with her counterparts from across Europe and further afield to get to the bottom of the matter? Reports that as many as 14 deaths on UK soil could have occurred in similar circumstances is very worrying. Will there be an inquiry into those incidents and the frequency of such attacks?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the general tone of the Government’s approach, and I of course join in her admiration and support for the emergency services, which are doing such excellent work. I must repeat to the hon. Lady that the investigation is ongoing at pace, and the police and the other services involved appreciate the urgency. It does not help their work, which must be our priority, to speculate about what might happen when we make an attribution. When we are ready to bring more evidence to the House, I reassure the hon. Lady that I hope to be able to go further in answering her questions. For now, she must allow me to say that we will not be drawn any further as we allow the investigation to complete.

Seasonal Migrant Workers

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. I would say that this debate is focused on the agricultural sector. There are definitely challenges in other parts of the economy, but that does not remove anything from the fact that in the past 10 years there has been a downward trend in the number of workers who are coming from the EU to work in our economy.

Seasonal work in the United Kingdom now appears less attractive than it was a decade ago because of a range of factors. A number of Members have described those, but the most notable is the drop in the value of the pound. Many voices in the industry favour the reintroduction of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which came to an end following the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU. We now have the opportunity to bring this scheme back or at least to look at something similar—an opportunity that has only been brought about because of Brexit. I join in calls for the United Kingdom Government to look closely at reintroducing the scheme as a way of meeting the seasonal needs of farmers not just across Scotland and in my constituency, but across all the United Kingdom.

A final point I want to make is that this issue starkly highlights the importance of maintaining the United Kingdom’s internal market and the easy movement of staff across the UK—something that the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh seems unable to understand. Seasonal migrant workers often start working in one part of the United Kingdom and travel across the country on different jobs in one season. The effect of the SNP’s call for a separate immigration policy would make it harder for workers to do that. As Jonnie Hall, the director of policy at the National Farmers Union Scotland said, the last thing that farmers need is a “checkpoint at Berwick”. As is often the case, the needs of the farming sector are the same north and south of the borders, and it is in the farmers’ interest that this is dealt with on a UK-wide basis, rather than on a Scottish-only basis.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all here. Happy St David’s day—and happy first day of spring, just in case anybody did not notice. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I commend the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) for having secured it.

Many years ago—I suspect before some Members here were born—I worked for the Health and Safety Executive, based in Dundee, and I spent quite a lot of time around Angus and Perthshire visiting small local businesses. One thing that struck me then was that in addition to the significant direct employment in fruit growing and fruit processing in places such as Angus, Perthshire and Aberdeenshire, the number of small, family-owned businesses and other trades and professions that rely on agriculture is massive. There are mechanics, engineers, blacksmiths, lawyers, accountants, and haulage contractors, as well as the visible jobs, with people out working in the fields. Effectively, the whole economy of that part of Scotland is underpinned by our soft fruit and produce industry. That is why it is so important to protect it.

Scottish quality fruit and veg now adds £300 million a year to our GDP. It is 10% of our entire agriculture output—almost as much as the much more obvious Scottish farming industries of dairy and sheep farming, for example. Whatever happens with our relationship with the EU and others, I hope that those who rightly take massive pride in producing some of the best fresh fruit and veg in the world will continue to market it under Scotland, the brand, to draw attention to the fact that it is branded as being as good as anything people can get from anywhere else in the world.

I note that in a single year, one growers co-operative, actually based in Angus, reported a loss of income of £660,000, simply because of labour shortages in a single year. That is one co-operative of 18 growers that is not likely to be any different from a lot of others. This industry and this part of our economy is under severe stress and severe threat. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) pointed out, it is difficult this year, but if the Government do not act, and act very quickly, next year and the following year could become impossible. This has been an iconic part of Scottish culture for decades, if not centuries, but we could see an end to soft fruit growing in parts of Scotland. I will come on to the UK Government’s response to that potential threat later.

It was reported in The Guardian last summer that a survey by the NFU found that between January and May 2017, farmers in the UK recruited a total of 13,400 workers, 14 of whom were from the United Kingdom—not 14,000 or 1,400, or even 140, but 14 out of almost 13,500 came from the United Kingdom. Other speakers have commented on the complex reasons why it is simply not credible to expect overseas seasonal migrant workers to be replaced by home-grown workers any time in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, and perhaps never at all. The industry will not last that long if we cannot pick the fruit from the fields.

We also have to remember that as well as the potentially disastrous impact on parts of our agriculture sector, the Government’s attitude to immigration—they treat it as numbers to be dragged down at all costs—affects so many other things which, certainly in Scotland and many other parts of the United Kingdom, we should be proud of having built up over the years.

Relative to the size of its population, Scotland possibly has more of the world’s top universities than any other country. Part of the reason for that is the number of overseas students and the number of exceptionally talented and dedicated overseas staff, including research staff and lecturers, who have come here purely as a result of freedom of movement, and who no longer express an interest in coming because they are not sure what their rights will be.

The demands on our NHS and care services are obviously very much in our minds at this time. Those services also rely heavily on incoming workers. I hope that it is not stretching relevance, Madam Deputy Speaker, to give a special mention to a consultant surgeon in Glasgow who this morning walked for three hours in the snow to get to work in Paisley. That is the sort of dedication that we see among NHS workers, regardless of where they have come from.

According to the article from The Guardian that I mentioned earlier—written last year—the director of an employment agency called Hops Labour Solutions, which exists to bring in seasonal workers to support the UK agricultural sector, said:

“The grim reality is that the perception from overseas is we are xenophobic, we’re racist”.

We might take exception to those words—we might like to think that we are not xenophobic or racist—but if that is how we are perceived by even 10% of people who might have been thinking of coming to work in the United Kingdom, we have a problem. It is a sad but undeniable fact that one of the immediate impacts of the vote to leave in the referendum in June 2017 was a massive spike in racist and racially motivated crimes in many part of the UK. Thousands of EU nationals living in the UK have come before Select Committees and told us that they have experienced a significant increase in racially motivated attacks, that they have begun to feel that they are no longer welcome, and that friends who have thought about coming here have been made to feel that they might not be welcome either.

I am not saying that that was one of the Government’s intentions in calling the referendum, and I am certainly not saying that it was the intention of anything like all the 17 million people who voted to leave, but we must face up to the fact that, as one of the consequences of the referendum, a climate or undercurrent has been allowed to develop which makes people from the European Union feel less welcome and less valued than they were before. If the Government continue to ignore or deny that, the problem can only continue to get worse.

The hon. Member for Angus pointed out, very eloquently, that although some parts of our fruit and vegetable growing industry can be mechanised, others cannot at this stage, and it will be several years, if not longer, before that will be possible. Solutions that rely simply on significant investment and mechanism might work in some industries, but they certainly would not work for soft fruit growers.

When we debated the seasonal agricultural workers scheme last year, the then Minister gave an assurance that the scheme could be reintroduced within five to six months if necessary. I suggest that it is now necessary, and that the Government should be seeking to reintroduce the scheme within far less than five to six months if that is at all possible. They clearly accepted that there might be a need to change the bad decision that was made in 2013, and I suggest that the need has now been established.

[Deidre Brock]

At a recent Scottish Affairs Committee meeting in Fife, we heard the views of Jonnie Hall of NFU Scotland on that very issue. He told us how frustratingly difficult he found it to “get traction”, as he put it, with the Home Office to even meet and discuss the union’s suggested solutions for dealing with the looming crisis, including SAWS. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on Home Office officials to meet representatives of NFUS and other experts in the sector as a matter of urgency to try to find a way out of this Brexit boorach?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely, and I would extend that to many other areas of activity, whether in private sector industry or in our greatly stressed public services. Home Office officials need to get out of the office and meet the people who work in agriculture, the health and social care services and universities, and hear why their approach to immigration—whether it is immigration on a permanent basis or migration on a temporary basis—is simply wrong.

EU Nationals

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Do not the unintended consequences of the decision to leave the EU seem to be appearing thick and fast? The implications of restrictions on EU nationals seem to be among the most unexpected, for some folks at least.

There has been some talk of scaremongering today, so let us hear the case of my constituent, Francoise Milne. She is French and has lived in the UK—mainly in Scotland—for 24 years. She has been married to a Scot for those 24 years and they have three children together. She has been refused a residency card for not exercising her treaty rights. She maintained the family home and reared three children while her husband served in the Marines, including on tours of duty in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. He spent more than two decades in service and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is a member of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, which is perhaps more commonly known as the Queen’s Bodyguard. The Home Office says that his wife cannot prove that she can support herself. Her husband’s income and her smaller income together provide for the matrimonial home and family life. The love and support she has provided for her husband helped him in his service. The idea that she not been exercising her treaty rights is ludicrous. I have written to Ministers and await an answer, but hers is not the only case that I have been asked to help with.

Marco Truffelli moved from Italy to London as a young man nearly 30 years ago. He built a career in the tourism industry, including as chief executive of VisitScotland for five years. His international management company has prestigious clients and he brings wealth into the UK, but his application for citizenship was refused on the grounds that he could not prove that he was resident in the UK. That was despite providing the receipts from HMRC that the Home Office asked for as proof of residence.

Mr Truffelli is married to a Scotswoman and has three children here. He never thought he would need to prove he had a right to live here. He applied for citizenship following the referendum. If Mr Truffelli does not match the profile of EU citizens this Government will accept, who can? I have also written to Ministers about Mr Truffelli’s case.

Those are just two examples. There are many people with different stories to tell, but a common thread among the constituents coming to see me—and, I imagine, a whole lot of other Members—is the fear that people have: fear that they will no longer be welcome in their home, and that a bureaucratic decision will see them sent away from their family or left without a secure right to stay here. I have constituents who are living in fear of the state. Members should consider that: a modern state—a supposed democracy—where people live in fear of its actions.

All these people, who are making our communities better places to live, are swinging in the wind because this Government are in thrall to a xenophobic wing of the Conservative party and a right-wing, anti-foreigner media. That is ironic for a party stuffed with people who are proud of their ancestry—the Angles, the Saxons and the Normans, that is.