Government Overseas Aid Commitment: Private Investment

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree with my hon. Friend and stand ready to receive other advice from the Opposition Benches about how we might close the £2.5 trillion funding gap—the shadow Home Secretary is not allowed to help with the maths. If we can deliver that through private investment, we can deliver the global goals. We must stop this dogma in the aid sector that anything done by the private sector is a bad thing; it is the only way we can actually deliver the goals.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I remain committed to the 0.7% figure, but I have no issue if that is made up of taxpayers’ money and a rate of return from taxpayers’ money, so long as the sum total is 0.7%. But may I ask the Secretary of State for reassurance that decisions will be made not on what gives the greatest investment return, but on what will give the greatest humanitarian outcome?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Absolutely, and businesses are very interested in this agenda. They are interested in seeing how they can embed the global goals into their company reporting; there is huge demand for that, and for advice and support to enable them to do that. The possibilities are truly incredible, and we should support our entrepreneurs and those philanthropists who also want to donate, because they are another part of this issue with the potential that impact investing has. They want to do some good in this world, and we should support them to do that.

Immigration

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr Walker, and welcome the public engagement that has caused it to be held. It is right that we discuss matters on which significant numbers of constituents have expressed concerns to the House, and that we have the opportunity to allay the concerns and fears that have clearly manifested themselves in the language used in the petition.

The debate on immigration is not new to me. Of course, by the time of the 2015 general election, it was well known to us all, but in 2008 I was selected to stand in North East Derbyshire, which was regarded as a rock-solid Labour former mining seat. In 2015, I stood in Bexhill and Battle and was fortunate enough to be elected. Both constituencies displayed a lot of concern about immigration, which is interesting because both have a lower exposure to immigration in terms of numbers of constituents. Perhaps that lack of exposure in certain parts manifests itself in concern, whereas in other constituencies, where immigration numbers are higher, the constituents are more comfortable. I would say that it is because they can see the many benefits to immigration.

Although I maintain that the language of the petition is perhaps on the harsh side, I acknowledge that many of our constituents have entirely legitimate concerns about immigration, including control, security and access to infrastructure. Those need to be answered and our constituents need to be reassured. Therefore, as we debate our need for more housing and more essential public services, such as health and education, and how we transport our constituents to work and across the country, we must consider the population size of the UK, which, as matters stand, is predicted to grow 25% by 2060.

In touching on those issues, I want to talk about the concerns raised directly by the petition and some underlying issues. First, I want to address the concept that foreign citizens are taking all our benefits. Over the years, there has been much debate about whether immigrants put more into the Exchequer than they take out in welfare and benefits. Like anything, that depends on how the data are interpreted. Two academics from University College London compiled a report on immigration between 1995 and 2011. On the one hand, the report concluded that EU immigrants put £20 billion more into the country than they took out in benefits, and non-EU immigrants put in £5 billion more than they took out. However, it also concluded that immigration would cost £120 billion. The difference between those conclusions is down to the fact that we clearly do not know how much immigration will cost and how much it will benefit us.

When looking at the cost of immigration, one tends to look at a group of individuals who have come to this country without having been educated here, and therefore have not put the burden of education on the state. There may also be an expectation that they will not burden the Exchequer with other large costs, including the cost of health, as they get older, and of pensions. There is an assumption, however, that immigrants will return to the countries from whence they came, but of course we do not know that they will do that. It is right to look again at this issue and keep asking ourselves whether the costs to the economy can be maintained.

However, I do not subscribe to the suggestion that benefits are the driver for immigration. I do not buy the idea that people are willing to risk life and limb and leave a lot of their family behind in another country purely to survive in this country on what is a relatively small amount of money when housing and other provisions are taken into account. I do not believe that at all. I am more inclined to believe that the type of person who has that get up and go and determination is the type of person who will set up their own business, contribute, work incredibly hard, enrich our country and be a success. However, I agree that anyone coming to this country must do so to work, study or shelter from persecution.

Foreign citizens are sometimes portrayed as taking our jobs. First, no one is entitled to a job; jobs have to be earned. When I speak to my constituent business owners—I have a considerable number of fruit farmers, for example, in my constituency—they say that they tend to hire migrant labour because they feel that they do not get the same productivity and work ethic in our native labour market. That is not universally the case, but it seems to be the perception. We have to help local people—young people, in particular—to break that perception and get jobs. An issue is the fact that businesses tend to hire from abroad, rather than from within, which is regrettable.

However, we know that UK productivity needs to increase. Since I was elected, there have been a number of debates in Parliament on the fact that our productivity numbers are not high enough. I would contend that without immigration our productivity would be poorer.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend fought an election in 2008, so he will be only too aware that a campaign slogan was “British jobs for British workers”. It was very unhelpful, given the difficulty of getting productivity from some of our workers, which he has just described.

[Huw Merriman]

I agree. It should not be British jobs for British workers, but jobs for all workers. I was brought up on the idea that people have to compete and work hard. Somebody who is looking to employ would expect that from a worker, and they would look at it before looking at their nationality. None the less, I want to support our native employment market. I encourage those people to take a leaf out of the book of some of those who come from abroad with nothing and work incredibly hard. That is very important.

I want to touch on the benefits of migration to some of our essential public services, and our reliance on immigrant numbers as a result. It would be difficult to staff our hospitals, in which 11% of all staff and 26% of doctors are non-British. We hugely rely on those individuals to keep us healthy and well. From a local perspective, 28% of my constituents are aged over 65—that is a figure to celebrate, because the national average is nearer 17%—but it makes care home provision in my constituency an enormous challenge, and without immigration those care homes would be either incredibly expensive or understaffed.

The key is to get the balance right. There has been some talk about what occurred before 2010, but if we are to have an honest conversation about immigration we must look at the things we have done well and the things that have not worked out well. I believe that, before 2010, the Government badly underestimated the net migration from the newly acceded countries. The Labour Government thought that between 5,000 and 13,000 people would move from Poland and the newly acceded eastern European countries to the UK from 2004. The number of migrants who arrived was not their maximum figure of 13,000, but 1 million. Almost every EU nation, with the exception of Ireland and Sweden, prevented migrants from coming over for seven years. The British public have such a dismissive view of immigration policies and lack trust because we got our predictions of the numbers spectacularly wrong. It is important that we win back the trust of the British people so we can reassure them that we have the correct boundaries for immigration. I am pleased that the Government I support have required individuals from newly acceded countries to wait the full seven years before they can benefit from the same rights as EU workers.

The final issue I want to touch on is culture. It is often said that we need to preserve our culture, or that our culture is under threat. In my view, cultures evolve. Our culture has certainly been enriched over the centuries by global trade and our desire to look beyond our own window, and I would support that. Perhaps it is fair to add that the most culturally homogenous nation on earth is North Korea, which is hardly a great example of cultural enrichment. However, we must also preserve our values of freedom of speech, equality and respect for the rights of others. We must jealously guard those rights from all those who seek to erode them. That must be understood by anyone seeking to join our country—and, indeed, anybody already within our country.

Finally, on the ethics of immigration, I struggle with the fact that our health system is hugely reliant on immigrants, many of whom come from incredibly poor countries where people do not have the same access to hospital provision, drugs and care that we do. In taking people from such countries, I ask myself whether we are denying much more vulnerable people the ability to be cared for. We should continue to ask such questions. On Syria, which it is important to consider in this debate, is it right that people who have risked drowning are instantly allowed into this country? By allowing them to settle in this country, are we encouraging others to take even greater risks? That is of huge concern to me, which is why I support the Government’s stance that, rather than encouraging and incentivising people to risk their lives in perilous journeys, we seek to look after people in the camps or to take vulnerable people from those camps. In so doing—this is part of the ethical challenge—we keep as many people close to Syria as possible, so that the fittest and most able, who might otherwise never return to look after their own country and become future leaders, are nearby when they are able to return.

I welcome the benefits of immigration, but it is right that we discuss the public’s concerns openly. I certainly do not agree with the concerns as stated in this particular petition, but such concerns exist and it is right that the public keep us on our toes. We should not shy away from our responsibilities. The positives of immigration ultimately outweigh any negatives.