Legal Migration

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

We continue to work extensively with business to ensure that their need for employees is supported, and to support our economy in a way that does not undermine communities or depress wages but supports the high-skill, high-wage economy that we aspire to. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Is not the problem with a skills-based immigration policy that it gives preferential access to bankers, lawyers, accountants and economists, even though we have no need for such people in this country? We have plenty of homegrown talent here. That makes it difficult to recruit the people we do need: care workers; people in the food industry and in manufacturing, or producing things generally; or in the tourism industry. Will the Secretary of State consider moving away from the failed skills-based migration policy towards one based on the needs of our economy?

[James Cleverly]

I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend, but the figures just do not bear out his assessment. The vast majority of people in the last couple of years’ worth of immigration figures are in the lower end of the skills spectrum. The figures do not bear out his point.

Seasonal Worker Visas: Sponsorship Certificates

George Eustice Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the issuing of certificates of sponsorship for seasonal workers’ visas.

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for asking this urgent question. The Home Office recognises the importance of the UK food and drink sector, and the agricultural industry that supplies it. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme exists to support those businesses and ensure that they have the labour they need. The quota for 2022 was 38,000 workers for the edible and ornamental horticulture sector, and a further 2,000 for the poultry sector. That quota has not yet been met, and the Home Office’s management data suggest that about 1,400 places remain.

An announcement on the 2023 scheme is imminent. My Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be making that statement very soon. In the meantime, workers already in the United Kingdom under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme can continue to take other work placements and to stay in the UK for up to six months, even if that involves remaining here into 2023. Further workers can avail themselves of the remaining 1,400 certificates and enter the UK this year—even if, again, that means staying into 2023—for the duration of their six-month placement. My Department is committed to supporting this important sector and to working with stakeholders to improve the delivery of schemes such as the one for seasonal agricultural workers.

[George Eustice]

The seasonal worker visa scheme has been a tremendous success—perhaps one of the most successful Home Office policies in recent years—and this year it has provided about two thirds of the labour needs of the horticultural sector. However, there have been some serious problems with administration. In particular, scheme operators need to be issued with an allocation of certificates of sponsorship now, so that they can recruit people and secure the visas necessary for workers to start in January.

Last year, the Home Office allowed certificates of sponsorship in 2021 to be used as the basis for workers arriving in January 2022. This year, for reasons that have not been properly explained, Home Office officials have taken a decision not to allow that and have made it clear to operators that they cannot use that route. Indeed, I understand that they have closed the ability to issue certificates of sponsorship from the end of November, so that no one at the moment is able to issue them.

There are two legitimate courses of action. One would be to allow the same situation to apply as last year, and enable the remaining certificates of sponsorship for this year to be used for workers arriving in January. The second course of action would be to make a provisional allocation of certificates of sponsorship on the sponsorship management system run by the Home Office. This could be done very easily and would enable operators to recruit staff in the next few weeks.

That is of critical importance to the daffodil industry in my constituency. Daffodil growers currently have around a third of their staff from last year’s scheme, a third of them being settled EU citizens. At the moment they are going to have a gap of between 30% and 40% of their staffing needs, which will be catastrophic for the industry by the end of January. So will the Minister take immediate action directing his officials to put a provisional allocation of certificates for sponsorship on to the Home Office sponsorship management system?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who of course brings more expertise to this issue than anybody in the House. He rightly says that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has been a success and is an important contributor to the food and drink sector in this country, but he raises important issues, and I intend to take them up with my officials.

Parts of the sector, such as the daffodil industry, require workers early in the year, meaning that we need to take steps to ensure that those businesses can make sensible recruitment decisions in good time, and not leave these decisions, as has happened too often, to the eleventh hour. I appreciate that last year the decision on the seasonal agricultural workers scheme was announced on Christmas eve, which no doubt was a cause of significant frustration for those working in the sector. I will work intensively with my officials to ensure that we get that decision out as quickly as possible.

In the interim, two options are available to the industry: first, to make use of workers already in the UK under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme who have been doing other work until now but might want to move into a sector such as daffodils as quickly as possible for the remainder of their time in the UK; secondly, new individuals could enter the UK under the scheme using the undercapacity within the 2022 placement, and stay into 2023.

My right hon. Friend raises with me this morning the issue that the Home Office has frozen certificates, making it impossible for employers to bring people in and make use of the remaining certificates in this year’s quota. I have been informed by my officials this morning that nothing has changed from the way the scheme worked last year. If that is incorrect, I will change that today and ensure that the scheme is unfrozen so that important employers such as those my right hon. Friend rightly represents can make use of the remaining certificates before the end of the year. If it is correct that the Home Office has frozen these certificates, I apologise to businesses who have been inadvertently inconvenienced by that and I hope that the Environment Secretary and I can resolve this as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will understand the distinction between deportation, which happens to foreign national offenders, and removal, which happens to those who are immigration offenders. There is a very clear difference. He will know that I cannot comment on individual cases, but it is worth stating that the Supreme Court has upheld the Government’s minimum income requirement to have dependants and spouses in this country. That is an important principle, which the Government support, because we want people to have an adequate level of income that will enable them to integrate into society.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Given that we ran a highly successful seasonal agricultural workers scheme from 1945 to 2013, what do the Government think they can learn from a two-year pilot? Since we have an urgent labour shortage in agriculture, will the Secretary of State commit to convert the current pilot into a fully operational scheme next year?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend will be conscious that at the moment free movement still prevails, which is one of the reasons why this is still a pilot. The Government will of course carefully evaluate the outcome of what is scheduled to be a two-year pilot to understand the impact and to look at what we can do going forward.

Migration Advisory Committee

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the composition of the Migration Advisory Committee.

The Migration Advisory Committee has six members. The chairman, Professor Alan Manning, is from the London School of Economics; he is, of course, an economist. Professor Jackline Wahba is from the University of Southampton; she is an economist. Dr Jennifer Smith is from Warwick University; she is an economist. Madeleine Sumption is from the University of Oxford; she is an economist. Dr Brian Bell is from King’s College London; he is an economist. Finally, Professor Jo Swaffield, who is newly appointed, is from the University of York; unsurprisingly, she too is an economist.

I do not doubt that all those individuals are proficient economists. Nor do I doubt that those of them who still lecture are perfectly capable of imparting in the lecture theatre the knowledge that students need to pass their exams. However, an important question must be asked: does it make sense to have an advisory committee on migration that is made up exclusively of economists, and that excludes all other fields of knowledge and experience? If the Minister told me that there was a case for one economist on the panel, I would accept that, because there is undoubtedly an element of economics in migration policy. However, it is not the only issue that we should address, nor are economists’ skills the only skills needed.

The knowledge and experience of the individuals on the committee is inevitably quite limited and narrow, and their perspective is inevitably very theoretical rather than rooted in experience. They live in an academic bubble, which means that they do not always understand the challenges that individual businesses face. Not one of them, I think, has ever run a business; not one has created any wealth on their own through entrepreneurship; not one has created any jobs. They do not know what it is like to worry about putting together a rota to ensure that a restaurant is fully staffed. They do not know what it is like to be a strawberry farmer who has to close a gate on a field of strawberries because they do not have enough staff. Nor do they know what it is like to have to cancel a weekend away with their family because somebody has called in sick and they have to do the work themselves.

My view is that an expert committee on migration should be much broader. It should have entrepreneurs—people who have actually built wealth, created jobs and made and run their own businesses. It should have business leaders from a range of different sectors.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a range that covers not only different sorts of people, but the whole United Kingdom? We should understand the issues that affect all parts of our United Kingdom.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. For instance, some of the Migration Advisory Committee’s advice has been that it does not matter if we shut down certain industries, but some of those industries are prevalent in certain regions and matter to those of us who represent them. I believe that the committee should also have a range of business leaders from a range of sectors of the economy, to represent different briefs and explain why particular sectors employ people in a particular way. Why not have a place for a trade union representative as well?

The Minister or her officials might regard all the people I have just mentioned as dreadful vested interests with an axe to grind, who could not possibly sit on an expert committee. I disagree. Does not the Minister value those people’s opinions? She might find that real entrepreneurs and people in business and trade unions could ground-truth some of the current committee’s economic theories.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Even to economists, for whom I have a high regard, some things should be self-evident. For instance, in Stafford we grow an awful lot of salad, which replaces salad that would otherwise be imported. It is really important for the United Kingdom’s balance of payments; without the workforce to pick it, grow it and process it, we would be more reliant on imports and our balance of payments would be negative.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is important that as a country we make, produce and grow things. Sadly, I am afraid that some economists overlook the importance of that, and some do not think that the balance of payments matters at all. They think that we can just carry on losing money, borrowing it from elsewhere and spending like no tomorrow, but we all know that that is not how the world works.

Even if the Minister felt that some of the people I have mentioned had a vested interest or an axe to grind, it would be quite possible to make allowances to take that into account. It is wrong to ignore those voices and shut them out. Even if the committee were to remain largely academic, where is the space for people who studied international relations? Do not their degrees matter? There will be many people at the Home Office who have chosen to work in immigration, and whose skillsets and qualifications are in international relations, but they are all excluded from this expert committee. What about people who studied human geography, a normal route to looking at issues such as immigration? Where is the space for them on the committee?

The Minister may say that she meets businesses and unions all the time and hears their voices. However, we cannot get away from the fact that this narrow advisory committee almost sees itself as writing policy. Ministers and officials who draft answers to parliamentary questions routinely hide behind the MAC, saying that it is not appropriate for Ministers to say anything about migration matters until the committee has reached a conclusion. They appear to have abdicated responsibility for policy making to the committee.

The level of reverence shown by the Home Office to the Migration Advisory Committee is rather akin to that shown to the Monetary Policy Committee. However, the MPC was established by statute and has statutory powers to set interest rates, whereas the MAC is simply an ad hoc advisory group and should be treated as such.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, highlighting deficiencies in the Migration Advisory Committee with respect to the reflection of regions, income strands or industry needs. However, the committee only advises; Ministers decide. This afternoon, the Minister has an opportunity to show how she can hear and ignore, to make sure that we have a system that is bespoke and best suited for the future of our industry and our country.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that the Minister will clarify that the Government have an absolute right to ignore at will any recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee.

Until recently, I was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I was one of those Ministers who used to sign off parliamentary answers that said, “We can’t say anything until we hear from the Migration Advisory Committee.” We saw this as a vital piece of work. As we leave the European Union and take back control—in some cases for the first time in half a century—of policy areas such as agriculture, fisheries and migration, we must assertively own that space. There is no space for sitting on our hands, dithering and delaying; we must wholeheartedly come up with a coherent policy.

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that people in fishing, farming, healthcare, social care and our tourism industry are acutely conscious of this challenge. They expect and want whoever is making the decisions, or at least guiding policy, to be well informed and responsive to things as they change.

[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.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Immigration is very important to Scotland, and I notice the absence of my colleagues from the Scottish National party. It is a very important area not just for Scotland, but for the whole of the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a very narrow field to have a team of economists dealing with such an important issue? We surely must have the voice of others—particularly business, the National Farmers Union in Scotland and in England and Wales, and, as he mentioned, trade unions. We need to have some mechanism whereby these people are heard and the real needs of these industries, including hospitality, the NHS, fishing and farming, are truly heard. I doubt whether any of those economists understands the need throughout the UK, particularly in Scotland.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a vital point, which is the thrust of my argument: we cannot have a coherent policy by relying just on the opinions of economists. They will give a particular perspective—cut and pasted out of a textbook—but it will not actually be ground truth; it will not be rooted in the real economy. Up and down the country, real businesses are taking decisions not to invest, not to expand and not to create new jobs, because they cannot get people to fill the vacancies that they have in their business as it stands. The stance against so-called low-skilled immigration is actually damaging our economy already, and we need to recognise that.

I have a second request of the Minister. As I said, I note that she recently took the opportunity simply to reappoint, I think, two members of the Migration Advisory Committee at the end of last year. She has not taken the opportunity to refresh the team. I also understand that Professor Alan Manning has a three-year term, which, if my research is correct, ends in November. Can the Minister confirm that she will not reappoint Professor Alan Manning, that his term will end in November, and that he can then be replaced by someone who understands business?

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) on securing this debate. He put his view forward with customary forthrightness, and I would expect nothing less from him. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to shine a bit of light on the work of the Migration Advisory Committee. It plays a very important role in the development of immigration policy and its work is often in the spotlight, but there is far less discussion of the committee’s membership and composition.

We are lucky to have the MAC. Although there are no members of Her Majesty’s Opposition here to hear me say this, the then Labour Government’s establishment of the MAC back in 2007 was possibly one of the best things they did in the field of immigration. Creating the MAC has enabled successive Governments to have a source of informed, authoritative and impartial advice on some of the most contentious and thorny questions of immigration policy. The readiness with which successive Governments have accepted the MAC’s advice is a testament to the quality of that advice and to the value and wisdom of having such a body. It is noteworthy that a number of other countries have now sought to emulate our approach by appointing their own expert bodies to advise them on immigration policy.

As my hon. Friend said, the MAC is made up of a chair and five members, whom he described as proficient economists. I might go somewhat further and describe them as eminent labour market economists and migration experts working in universities and think-tanks, who bring considerable skills, expertise and experience to their role. Indeed, I venture to suggest that they are some of the finest minds in their discipline in the United Kingdom. The chair and the members are appointed through a process of fair and open competition, in accordance with Cabinet Office rules on public appointments. The MAC is supported by a secretariat made up mainly of Government economists drawn from across the civil service, but it remains independent of the Government.

It has been suggested—indeed, this was the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s comments—that the MAC or a successor body would benefit from having a wider range of members, and that it should include not just academics but, for example, people working in industry. I want to make three points in response.

First, advertisements for MAC members do not stipulate that they have to be academics. As I have said, fair and open competition is used, and there is nothing to prevent a person working in any field from being appointed, provided he or she is the best candidate. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the advertisement listed experience of working in or with business as one of the desirable criteria that candidates were asked to display.

Secondly, the MAC always seeks to proceed by consensus, and all its reports are unanimously agreed. There is a danger that that approach could be damaged if it were made up people who felt the need to represent and argue for the concerns of particular sectors or vested interests.

Thirdly, I am not sure where we would draw the line in any such approach. My hon. Friend suggested that the MAC, or a body that replaces it, should have business representatives among its members, but there are millions of businesses in the UK and many representative bodies that speak for their interests, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, Make UK and chambers of commerce up and down the country, to name but a few. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that they should all have a seat. If businesses are to be represented, what about the trade union movement, charities, voluntary organisations, local government and, of course, the NHS, which is a major employer of migrant labour? Pretty soon we might have a body so large and unwieldy that it would struggle to advise the Government sensibly.

The MAC has been very busy indeed over the past few years. My hon. Friend mentioned one of the two important reports it produced last year. The first was on international students, and the second on the impact of European economic area migration. I recognise that not everybody agrees with its conclusions, particularly in the EEA migration report—my hon. Friend is among those who do not share its views—but producing a report that commands universal support would be beyond any committee or organisation, however constituted, given how contentious immigration policy is. Moreover, I do not think anyone can dispute the thoroughness and rigour of the MAC’s approach.

My hon. Friend invited me to tell him that I have travelled the country meeting businesses, trade unions and others. I certainly do that, but so has the MAC, and it will continue to do so. For its report on EEA migration, it took evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals, and visited every nation of the United Kingdom and every part of England. As its interim report states, it met more than 130 organisations and stakeholders representing every sector of the UK economy, and it received 417 written submissions. It weighed all that evidence very carefully before it came to its conclusions. It is important that people do not let their disappointment with the recommendations translate into an attack on the effectiveness of the independent body that produced them.

My hon. Friend went as far as to say that the MAC’s report was cut and pasted from a textbook. Far from it. It was the result of a great deal of evidence taking, research and work, which took many months. It is incredibly important to recognise that the MAC’s recommendations are exactly that—recommendations. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) suggested that I have the ability to hear and ignore. I also have the ability to hear and listen. This year, as part of our White Paper engagement, we are taking the opportunity to listen to a wide range of views from across the country and from a variety of sectors. Immigration policy is a matter for the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth knows, not least because he was involved in this when he was a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Government’s intentions for the UK’s future skills-based immigration system were set out in a White Paper that was published last December, which we have described repeatedly as the start, not the end, of the conversation.

Time does not permit me to cover the White Paper in detail, beyond making it very clear that our engagement has started. So far, more than 60 meetings have been held to discuss the proposals contained within it. To date, I have met representatives of several significant sectors, and I will continue to do so over the course of the next few months. We will not make a final decision on the proposals in the White Paper until that process has been completed. In parallel with that, the MAC is reviewing the composition of the shortage occupation list, and is undertaking an extensive evidence-gathering process to help its deliberations.

We have heard views this afternoon from across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and the south-west. Hon. Members mentioned a variety of sectors, including social care, farming, fishing and hospitality, but there are many others that we often hear less of. I am particularly struck that the road haulage and distribution, veterinary science and retail sectors rely significantly on migrant labour. When we consider the views that are fed into the MAC, it is important that we do not cherry-pick which parts of industry and which sectors we listen to. We must listen to them all, and to every part of the country.

[George Eustice]

I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out her approach. Does she agree with a point that a number of hon. Members made, which is that a coherent approach to setting numbers for migrants coming here would be to look at a range of different sectors so we can make the best judgment about the number of migrants we want to come into the country for the time being—albeit perhaps on a short-term work permit? The MAC has done something very different. It has set out a plan to socially engineer a change to our economy. Its plan is to force the closure of certain industries by denying them access to the labour they need. That is what is wrong.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend will be aware, from the White Paper and the Government’s proposals, that although we have listened to the MAC, we have not relied exclusively on its opinions. The MAC did not include any suggestion of a temporary workers route for skills that do not fall within the categories that it has designated—I hate to use the term “lower skilled”, and if I have a few minutes at the end, I will try to expand on why. We are very conscious that there are industries and sectors that need people with different skills. The temporary workers route, which we included in the White Paper as a point for engagement and discussion, was not included in the MAC’s report. I am very conscious that, although we have to listen to the views of expert economists, we have to come up with a coherent policy that will work for every sector of industry, every part of the economy and the whole of the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend makes a big pitch for tier 3, and we can have a long conversation about “lower skilled”. He and I are conscious that there are many occupations that do not fall neatly into the categories of “high skilled” or “medium skilled”. When we talk about lower skill levels, I always try to find different language. There are many people working in health and social care or in farming and fishing who have skills that do not fall neatly within academic qualifications but are absolutely essential if those business are to be able to find staff, and to remain vibrant and profitable. That is part of the jigsaw puzzle that we are putting together over the course of the year.

The White Paper makes it clear—my hon. Friend may disagree with this—that we envisage an expanded role for the MAC in the future. As well as responding to specific commissions from the Government as it does now, it will have a wider role to produce an annual report on all aspects of Government immigration policy. It will have the ability to consider and make proactive recommendations on any aspect of that policy. The White Paper is clear that we want to consider the MAC’s composition, status and remit, potentially including expanding the chair’s post. I have certainly heard my hon. Friend’s pitch about appointments to posts in the MAC. I emphasise again that that is always done through fair and open competition. We want the best people—people with experience and expertise—and it is crucial that we build on our existing model, rather than create something new from scratch.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling us to debate these important matters. He, like other hon. Members, has strong views about this. I remain convinced that the MAC model has served the UK and successive Governments well, and that we should enhance and strengthen it so that, in an area as important as immigration policy, the Governments can continue to make policy on the basis of the best possible independent and impartial evidence-based advice.

Question put and agreed to.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that opting into the EAW does mean it will be subject to the ECJ, but I have to say to him that the importance of the EAW, not only to our crime-fighting and to British police forces, but to victims is so immense that it would be highly irresponsible, against the national interest and against the interests of victims of crime to opt out of it. I understand his views, and it is important that he should have the opportunity to express them, but I just disagree with him on this matter, given the serious cases we have seen. About 900 suspected foreign criminals are extradited to other European countries each year as a result of the EAW being in place. Without the EAW it would take far longer to be able to send back the suspected criminals who ought to be returned, be it to their home country or to the countries in which they are alleged to have committed serious crimes, in order to be tried and to face justice.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

But all the uncertainty the right hon. Lady cites about the ability to opt back into some of these JHA policies stems from the fact that we had this block opt-out that the previous Government negotiated. What did they think were the advantages of a block opt-out as opposed to an optional opt-out on a case-by-case basis?

[Yvette Cooper]

The negotiations took place to secure the best possible deal and flexibility for the UK at the time, and it was right to do so. The hon. Gentleman signed the letter opposing all the opt-ins, and I understand where he is coming from. He should be able to express that view, but again, I disagree with him about the importance of these measures for fighting crime and protecting victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I want to give the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt. The proposals she has announced today may represent the right approach to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and others, and her amendments to domestic law may be sufficient, but we do not know whether that is the case, because we need time to consider her proposals. Unless there is engagement with the judiciary in other countries, anything we do in our domestic law will, to be frank, not make any difference.

[George Eustice]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but the Government also need time to negotiate these opt-ins if they are to get them right, so the longer his Committee has to deliberate on these matters, the more difficult it makes it for the Government. I am on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and we frequently meet twice a week. This is a very important issue, so could his Committee not just commit, for this short period, to that extra day a week in order to get the job done effectively?

[Keith Vaz]

I will put that view to members of the Home Affairs Committee when we meet tomorrow. I will quote the hon. Gentleman and give them his e-mail address so that they can communicate with him directly.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend is making an important technical point, but is there not a more fundamental objection? The Opposition’s amendment is tantamount to saying that we must first ask the permission of the European Commission before we can exercise the treaty right that we have for this opt-out. It is basically saying that we should wait and see what the Commission thinks before we make a decision.

[Mr Cash]

I take a strong view on these matters not only in respect of the importance of scrutiny as a matter of principle, but because, as I have said so often, this House should make the decisions. We should not have them imposed upon us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The decision before us this evening is important—I think. I say that because the significance of the Government’s accepting amendment (b) is taking a little while to sink in, but we shall see.

This is an important debate. I do not approach this issue in an ideological way. This is not about whether we are for Europe or against Europe; it is about whether we come to a balanced decision that is in the best interests of the United Kingdom. I have to be honest: I have some reservations about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I well remember the discussions inside Government when Labour was in power about whether we should dismantle the third pillar and go along with the suggestion that it should incorporated in the treaty on the institutions of the European Union as a whole. I still have some reservations and concerns about that.

It is also important to recognise just how significant the measures we are debating are, particularly with regard to the European arrest warrant. Whatever concerns we might have—for example, about the European Court of Justice—it is important for us to look practically at what the practitioners in the field say. I am thinking in particular of the police. It is very significant indeed that the Association of Chief Police Officers has said quite emphatically just how important the European arrest warrant is in tackling international crime.

It is worth looking at the hard-core statistics and recognising that the UK has deported more than 4,000 criminals under the European arrest warrant, 95% of whom are foreign nationals removed from the UK. At the same time, more than 600 alleged criminals have been returned to the UK to face British justice for crimes committed here. It is important to recognise what ACPO emphatically said in its evidence to the House of Lords EU Committee. The summation put the position of ACPO, and indeed many others, very well:

“The majority of our witnesses considered the EAW to be an important PCJ measure that brought benefits to the United Kingdom. They said that it had led to the creation of a more efficient, simpler, quicker, cheaper, more reliable and less political system of extradition”.

That is a very important statement, and I think anyone genuinely concerned about tackling international crime effectively should be wary about rejecting such concerted advice. It is important for us to recognise that, but that is not to say that the European arrest warrant is perfect—far from it.

Many people in the evidence sessions held in the House of Lords indicated that there was room for improvement. It is significant that the Home Secretary specified in her statement this afternoon a number of unilateral measures that the British Government would like to take to improve the workings of the EAW. I would suggest, however, that it is not simply a question of us wanting to improve the EAW. As the Home Secretary said in response to my question, it is important to have a dialogue with individual member states, but it is also important to have a dialogue inside the institutions of the European Union. That is why I am concerned that the general rhetoric and bellicose attitude of this Government towards things European does not put them in a good position to negotiate inside the tent practical arrangements relating to the EAW and many other matters.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted his agreement with the Home Secretary that the European arrest warrant as it stands is not perfect and could be reformed and improved. What would he change to make it acceptable to him?

[Wayne David]

One of the main concerns is that there are many minor infringements. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee referred to the example of the Polish wheelbarrow theft. That provides a clear practical example of where people realise that systems such as this need to be changed. A number of practical points have been put forward, and I think Members should examine them very carefully.

Genuine concern has been expressed about the practical workings of the EAW, but the central point I want to make this afternoon is that the nature of crime has changed markedly over the last few years. We all realise we live in a global economy, but we are also seeing international crime the like of which we have never seen before. The trend towards the internationalisation of criminality is, frankly, likely to continue. I well remember asking the then chief constable of Gwent, “Where is the focal point for criminal planning and masterminding in Gwent?” and the answer was that it was “in the Balkans”. That brought home to me a very practical sense that if we are serious about neighbourhood policing and tackling criminality in our own areas, we have to be concerned not just about the national picture but about the international picture, too. The European Union, and the European arrest warrant in particular, represents a very positive step towards addressing this practical reality.

As I say, practical reality is of primary concern, and it has to be placed against other measures about which we might not be so enthusiastic, such as the increasing jurisdiction and powers of the European Court of Justice. However, on balance, I am confident that we should support the proposal to opt into the measures.

The Government gave the clear impression that there would be far more consultation and debate in the House than has actually taken place. I intervened on the Home Secretary earlier when she quoted a statement made back in January 2011 by the Minister for Europe, who stated categorically that the Government would conduct further consultation on the arrangements for the vote and that, in particular, there would be consultation with the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees in both Houses. In fairness to the Minister, it must be said that he recognised the significance of the vote and the need to go into all the fine detail that is inherent in these measures; but sadly, notwithstanding the apparent concession that was made a few moments ago, the Government do not seem inclined to embrace the spirit of what he said. I regret that, because I think it would be most unfortunate if the impression were given that the House was being bounced into a decision, and that we were engaged in a process that we did not wholly understand because of its contradictory nature—what with “in-out, in-out” and all the rest of it.

What we need is straightforwardness and transparency. We need a full appreciation of the complexities of the issues, and a balanced, measured response to the pros and cons with which we are faced. I think that the debate represents a small step in that direction, but I hope very much that the Government will take on board, in particular, what has been said by the Chairs of the Select Committees.

As I said earlier, this is an important issue, and no Member in any part of the House should approach it from either a pro-Europe or an anti-Europe standpoint. We must consider the pros and cons, we must recognise the reality of the modern world in which we live, and we must reach a balanced decision on whether these measures —particularly the one relating to the European arrest warrant—will help or hinder the fight against crime. Personally, I have no doubt that they will help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I would be delighted to pass that on, and I am sure the two hon. Gentlemen could have a separate conversation about the matter. There are a wealth of individual cases, some of which I looked at when I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but the obsession with Europe that runs through the Conservative party—or, to rephrase that, through many elements of the Conservative party—is deeply alarming. I am pleased we have managed to get sensible comments from Conservative Ministers on the Front Bench about our need to work with Europe. As crime becomes more international and people can travel more, it is important that we are able to share information.

If we were to ask the public whether they want criminals brought back here to face justice, I do not think many of them—other than the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—would immediately start talking about the powers of the ECJ. I simply do not believe that is the main issue.

We are not where we should be yet, however. We have this very odd, very convoluted, very complex process, and many of us think it would be much simpler if it had not been negotiated in the form that it was, with the very complex opt-out followed by an opt-in process. I do not think any Member would say that was the best way to proceed. It may or may not have been the best that could be achieved—I do not know the details—but it is certainly very complex, and I and my colleagues will be very happy to work with the Home Secretary and to keep the pressure on her to make sure the negotiations to opt back in are successful. That will be a complex and difficult task, however.

That is why it is also very important to make sure that nothing goes wrong. We do not want to end up accidentally not being able to get back into things we need to be in; for example, we do not want to end up having to be out of Europol for a brief period, which would mean that Europol director, Rob Wainwright—a Brit—could not continue in his role.

The Lords European Union Committee has conducted detailed scrutiny of this and has produced a detailed report. In April it concluded that it was not convinced a compelling case had been made to opt out. I have to say I agree with it. I think it would be far easier, far cleaner and far simpler not to exercise the opt-out at all. I would love to know how much is being spent in time, in effort and in getting a huge number of civil servants and lawyers to go through the details of all of this, and what the overall benefits would be.

It is absolutely true that, as many Members have said, some of the items under discussion are outdated or irrelevant, and that they simply do not matter. We should weigh that against the massive cost and the time that would be taken in this House and elsewhere in going through them all and making a decision.

[George Eustice]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, but is he aware that even the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank far closer to his views on these issues than mine, has said that our continued involvement with these JHA powers should be conditional on a fundamental reform of the European arrest warrant?

[Dr Huppert]

I agree that the European arrest warrant needs to be reformed. I have said so in many debates in this place. When I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we produced a list of some of the reforms there should be. The European arrest warrant should be fixed and reformed. That is a different question, however, from the one about whether we should exercise this opt-out and go through the complex, tortuous process of opting back in again. I would prefer not to do that. I would prefer to stay as we are. I do not see any measure that actively causes us harm which we plan to get out of, but I accept that that decision has been taken, that the Home Secretary and the Conservatives are keen to exercise that opt-out, and that many of the things we will end up leaving are not very significant measures. I completely accept that and am committed to making sure that we keep the ones that are most essential for the continued protection of British citizens. That is my focus.

Proceeds of Crime

George Eustice Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

For the anti-Europeans on the Government Benches, let me say that it is certainly a yes. I certainly wish to see co-operation on a Europe-wide basis to freeze terrorist and criminal assets and to repatriate them to this country. The hon. Gentleman can certainly take it as a yes. This evening I have listened to what the Minister has said, which indicates that he has had advice—which I have not seen—that says that there are difficulties with this measure. What I am saying to the Minister—and to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is in her place—is that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and I would wish to have sight of that advice and to have further briefing on it, so that we can scrutinise the operation of the process by the Minister and how he intends to take forward discussions on the document as a whole. However, I sense that Government Members have objections to the very principle of such co-operation, rather than to the practice that the Minister has set out.

I would like to have some idea from the Minister—either now or after contributions from right hon. and hon. Members—of how he will take this matter forward. He has indicated that he has concerns about certain issues, but he has not yet shared with the House the details of what they are. What is his timetable for discussion with his European Union colleagues on these matters? Does he have a timetable to try to resolve the issues? Does he intend to return to the House at some point to sign up to the document, or has it been kicked into the long grass because he knows that, ultimately, Members such as, I suspect—with due respect—the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and others would vote against the measure, no matter what was brought forward, as a matter of principle? If that is the case, the Minister should be honest with the House, because we will certainly return to this matter in due course, when we have seen the advice that he has received, as far as he can share it with us. I sense that this is not just about the operation and practice of the measure; rather, I sense that there are certain elements on the Government Back Benches with a fundamental objection to the principle of such co-operation.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Many Members on the Government Benches agree that we should co-operate. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that we can co-operate without giving up control in some of these policy areas and without subjecting ourselves to the authority of the European Court of Justice, which is what this directive is about?

[Mr Hanson]

Case proved, m’lud: the hon. Gentleman, along with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others, does have concerns about this issue in principle. What I take from the Minister this evening is that the advice that he has received from operational organisations points to concerns about the ability of the measure to deliver what it should deliver, which is an increase in the assets taken from criminals and terrorists, and their repatriation to the United Kingdom. If that is the reason he is lukewarm this evening about progressing the measure, I will look at that in detail. If the reason is the pain and suffering that hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others may bring upon him—because of their fundamental objections to further European co-operation on such matters—that is something that we will also revisit in due course. If the Minister can provide us with a timetable for further discussion and examination of the issues, and if he is saying that he will rule out for ever signing up to this—[Interruption.] If he would like to say that on the record, that would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful for that clarification. I should also like to say, for future reference, that I have been given hope that the Government might occasionally listen to what the House says, and that having debates before a decision is finally made would not necessarily be a bad thing. It might be a pious hope that speeches made from these Benches might influence the wise thoughts of Her Majesty’s Government, but it is one that I hold to. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but I hope that we can have better scheduled debates in future. From a personal point of view, I believe that the slot at the end of business on Wednesdays is extremely convenient for most people.

It is also a shame to be having this debate now, when half the members of the European Scrutiny Committee are away in, of all places, Europe. They are visiting Cyprus, in preparation for Cyprus taking over the European Union presidency. I was glad to have the opportunity of staying in the House. Like you, Mr Speaker, I prefer not to leave. I believe that you require specific permission to leave the country, and I would not mind being under the same constraint myself.

I shall move on to the substance of the opt-in decision, and to the Minister’s comments. It is tremendously important that, under our current law, any freezing order requires the order of a court, but that would not be the case under the proposed document from the European Union. It is unsatisfactory to allow the administrative freezing of assets without a court interfering. That is an important principle of justice, and on that basis alone it would be wise of the Government not to opt in to the directive.

As the Minister said, the directive would offer no direct benefit to our domestic asset recovery regime. That being the case, the only argument for opting in would be to have more Europe, and that is not the policy of Her Majesty’s Government, who are committed to keeping Europe closely under watch and limiting any extension of its powers. It is therefore difficult to see what changes to the draft directive the Government would find acceptable in order to make it better, or whether there is any prospect of their insisting that anything that happened under it should require a court order before being implemented. It would be interesting to know from the Minister what would be the consequences of our not opting in—by what would we be bound in our existing agreements and how would they develop, and what would be our ability to maintain bilateral arrangements with other member states in future? Might that not be a more suitable way of approaching the matter?

There are concerns about the standing of the directive under European constitutional law. As the Minister and other Members know, we have the ability to opt out of a great number of the crime and justice directives in 2014, but—and there is a but—if we signed this proposed directive, it would not be part of that block opt-out and it would remove our ability to opt out of three other directives that we have so far opted into. The block opt-out does not apply to EU policing and criminal justice legislation adopted following the Lisbon treaty’s entry and coming into force where the UK decides to become bound by it, and neither does it apply to pre-Lisbon treaty legislation that was amended once the Lisbon treaty came into effect. The three pieces of pre-Lisbon EU treaty legislation that we would lose are on money laundering, the identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of instrumentalities and the proceeds of crime under the framework decision 2001/500/JHA on the same subject, and another framework decision on the confiscation of crime-related proceeds. We would thus be tightly binding ourselves into all our future confiscation and money laundering policies being determined at the European level.

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that the longer we delay our decision about whether to exercise our block opt-out under the Lisbon protocol, the more it can be undermined by subsequent directives such as this one coming along. Does he agree that we should make a decision sooner rather than later about whether or not to exercise that block opt-out?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am in complete agreement, and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) might not be surprised to know that I would opt out of everything at every possible opportunity—and I am more than happy to admit that and to have it held against me in evidence by suitable authorities in future. It is important not to get sucked into more changes through the development of existing pre-Lisbon directives that then become binding and are not subject to the opt-out.

The other important aspect is that this directive does not apply exclusively to cross-border activities, as it applies in the UK alone where we are enforcing standards that apply to crimes committed purely in the UK, so we need to raise the question of what the European dimension is in all cases. If any directive is suitable, is it this directive, or should a completely different one be reframed relating to cross-border activities? That poses all the questions about recognition of foreign countries’ laws and enforcements that we raised with the Minister.

We have those problems to face in a once-and-for-all decision, but I also want to look at what the European Union document states on this issue and the basis on which it has been produced. The two legal bases are article 83(1) and article 82(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Article 83(1) includes provisions on organised crime, which the European Commission has decided includes almost any serious crime that could be mentioned, so we can see immediately in that justification part of the general European creep in using the treaties to extend the Commission’s remit—indeed, the EU’s own documentation admits that.

The other legal basis, article 82(2), is all about the facilitation of mutual recognition, so although the current document is not about mutual recognition specifically, this is part of the basis of the directive coming into force. There is some broad contradiction between how the directive will be applied and the legal base used for it. I think we should be suspicious of the EU extending its powers on a basis that it then does not wish to use. Why is it doing it that way?

I know that many other Members wish to speak, but I want to say a little about the way in which the European Union reached its decision. As can be seen in the document provided for the debate, it considered five policy options. The first was the status quo, which it immediately rejected as being completely unsatisfactory. Each of the subsequent options had a slightly more European context than the one preceding it. The second option was non-legislative:

“promoting implementation of existing confiscation obligations… and promoting… existing mutual recognition obligations”.

The European Union did not like that one.

The third option was the “Minimal legislative option”, involving

“transposition and utilisation workshops plus additional policy actions addressing identified deficiencies in the existing”

legislation. Lo and behold, the European Union did not like that one either.

The fourth option was the

“Maximal legislative option without mutual recognition”.

I do not think that “maximal” is a word, Mr Speaker, but your vocabulary is better than mine. Perhaps I should ask you to rule on it later in the day. That option, it was said, would provide many benefits, and

“would consist of all policy actions which do not involve legislative action in relation to mutual recognition.”

Finally, there was policy option 4.2:

“Maximal legislative option including mutual recognition”.

We can see exactly how the process operates. The European Union issues a discussion document and considers all the options. “What should we do? Should we just leave it to the nation states? No, that will not do: we cannot trust them. Should we just do a little bit that will ease the process and make it a bit better? Should we round some of the corners to make them smoother? No, we had best not do that; the European Parliament would not like it.” That is one of the arguments that it uses. “We must go for the maximum option. We must go for the most federalist option. We must go for the option that brings in the European Court of Justice to rule over laws that apply purely in the United Kingdom and purely in the criminal justice area.” That is how the European Union operates.

Her Majesty’s Government were absolutely right to decide not to opt in at this stage, and they should remain right by robustly refusing an extension of EU powers which is, as always, being introduced in the area where it is hardest to oppose. The suggestion is that there are all those nasty people out there, and that if we all club together we will be able to deal with them. However, a Bulgarian enforcement order on some Englishman who has mislaid a parking ticket is not a way of reducing crime. What we need is a robust British system—which I think we already have—that is subject to fair controls and court orders. We do not need a further power grab by the European Union.

Alcohol Strategy

George Eustice Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Police in Camborne in my constituency have recently dusted off the Inebriates Act 1898, which contains a comprehensive package of measures to deal with habitual drunks. As well as the new measures that the Home Secretary has introduced today, will she ensure that the police are making proper use of existing powers?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We want to ensure that existing powers that should be used, particularly on dealing with premises that continue to sell alcohol to people who are drunk, are exercised. However, I am sure that responsible landlords will welcome the statement. Indeed, the chief executive of Greene King said today that he strongly believes that the Government’s intention to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol is an important step.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Eustice Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I think that the public want a Government who actually look after taxpayers’ money, which is exactly what we will do. The police forces know that there is a process by which they can put in claims to the Home Office. Those claims will be properly considered, and as we have made clear, the Home Office will be making funds available in relation to the matters that the right hon. Lady has raised.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

2. Whether she has considered bringing forward amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to ensure that proposed police panels are representative of the geographical area they will serve.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

The Government have set out plans to ensure that police and crime panels are representative of the places they serve. We tabled an amendment to the Bill in another place, allowing many panels to co-opt further members. This will enable local authorities to address geographical imbalances.

[George Eustice]

I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the amendment, which is obviously a step in the right direction. However, he will be aware of the particular concerns of people in Cornwall that they might not get a fair geographic representation. What additional reassurance can he give that the Home Secretary will ensure that Cornwall is fairly represented on Devon and Cornwall police panel, and will he agree to meet a delegation from Cornwall council to discuss this issue?

[Nick Herbert]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns—they have been put to me by other hon. Friends. The amendment that we moved in the other place will allow for the nomination of an additional five members to the panel. Approval for that will lie with the Secretary of State, although there must be regard to geographical balance. I hope and believe therefore that we can reassure the people of Cornwall that they will be properly represented on these panels.