Immigration

Debate between Joanna Cherry and Deidre Brock

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

The Prime Minister left others to take the rap for her. It is important that today’s debate notes that the hostile environment is the legacy of the outgoing Prime Minister. Of late, there has been a rush in certain Tory quarters to disown the policy. Much as they like to try to lay the whole Brexit fiasco at the door of the current Prime Minister, such chameleon-like figures as the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and Ruth Davidson—both populists who have more in common than either would care to admit—have tried to distance themselves from the hostile environment without ever taking a principled stand against it.

The current Home Secretary likes to talk about how hard his father worked after arriving in the United Kingdom from Pakistan with just £1 in his pocket. In Scotland, we have a very significant community of Asian Scots, many of whose parents came to the United Kingdom with just £1 in their pocket like the Home Secretary’s father. The reality is that the current policies of the Government, of whom the Home Secretary is part, are designed to discourage people from following in their footsteps. Even worse, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and others this afternoon, the visit visa system is designed to prevent the families of our Asian brothers and sisters and others from visiting, except in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

At the start of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made a forensic speech. In a measured way, as we would expect from him, he went through in forensic detail the various problems with the system. In particular, he dissected the White Paper and outlined what is wrong with it—what is wrong with replacing freedom of movement with an expansion of the already failing tier 2 visa system. He also pointed to the demographic time bomb for Scotland, which appears to be conveniently ignored by Members on the Government Benches. He also pointed out that the Scottish Government have proposed constructive alternatives to the White Paper.

The shadow Minister, who knows I am very fond of him, suggested that a differential system would be an impossibility for Scotland but, as I said to him in my intervention, there are many examples across the world of differentiated systems working effectively. Canada is the example of which I am most aware, having been there to study the system, but there are other examples. I gently suggest that the Labour party has a go at looking at those examples. If it wants to get back any of the votes it has lost in Scotland, it needs to get on board—this might be a bit of a tall order—with the understanding that the position in Scotland is different.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who has had to leave his place, made a very powerful point about the threatened mass eviction of asylum seekers in Glasgow by Serco, and he has an Adjournment debate on the subject tomorrow. This is another spin-off from the hostile environment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who is my constituency neighbour, spoke about the impact of visa refusals on the Edinburgh festivals and on conferences in Edinburgh, as the capital city of Scotland is so important to our economy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) made a powerful contribution about the impact of the Government’s immigration policies on education and skills development in Scotland. She is an expert in the field of photonics, about which she spoke, but the points she makes apply across the science, technology, engineering and maths sector and into other sectors such as language teaching. We are discouraging early career researchers and technicians from working in Scotland by expanding the tier 2 system.

Other Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), spoke about the problem with religious visas. I first became aware of this problem in relation to the Thai temple in my constituency, but the issue is clearly affecting all sorts of religious denominations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said that she could have filled the rest of the debate with constituency cases and indicated that they account for a very high percentage of her workload. She is right, of course; that is the position of most of us. That is why I was so puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). Given that so many Scottish MPs have a high caseload of immigration cases, I am surprised that he is not in a similar situation. Stirling must be a little spot that the Government’s hostile environment has not reached.

What I really want to say to the Scottish Tories is that there is no doubt that, in this respect, SNP Members speak for their constituents. We speak for the high number of immigration cases we have to deal with, but we also speak for the fact that most of our constituents voted to remain in the European Union, and opinion polls show that even more people want to remain in the European Union than did three years ago.

I have to say that I feel a little bit sorry for the Minister as she has to both lead and sum up the debate today. It seems a bit unfair, particularly on her birthday; you’d think they would give her a wee bit of a break, especially as I am not aware of any shortage of Ministers in the Home Office. The Minister seemed keen to point to the evidence of the Migration Advisory Committee. Later, we heard from the hon. Member for Stirling that he is pretty unhappy with the MAC report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East indicated in his forensic dissection of it.

Of course, the MAC report is not the only source of evidence on which the Minister could draw. She could also look to the report of the Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population, which estimates the damage that ending free movement will inflict on Scotland. The group comprises a panel of experts with real expertise in the effects of migration and population on the economy and demography of Scotland, who said that proposals in the White Paper

“are projected to reduce net migration to Scotland by between 30% and 50% over the coming two decades”,

despite the fact that that migration is essential to growing the Scottish economy and to keeping our population up at the level that it is required to be. There are a number of other interesting things in the report by the Expert Advisory Group on Migration and Population and I commend the Minister to read it. It would be incorrect to leave the Chamber with any impression that business in Scotland is completely happy with what is proposed in the White Paper.

[Deidre Brock]

Members from the Scottish branch of the Tories have bandied about a lot of quotes about business. I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend is aware that the Scottish policy chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses has said:

“The UK Government’s obstinate approach to immigration is a clear threat to many of Scotland’s businesses and local communities. These proposals will make it nigh impossible for the vast majority of Scottish firms to access any non-UK labour and the skills they need to grow and sustain their operations.”

Is she surprised by that quote?

[Joanna Cherry]

Certainly not, because his colleague, the chair of the FSB, Mr Mike Cherry—no relation to me, in case there are any conspiracy theories from Conservative Members—said:

“The MAC’s report is deeply concerning for the small business community.”

Dr Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group of universities, has said of the Migration Advisory Committee’s report:

“This was a real opportunity to steer the UK towards a more modern and intelligent immigration system, but the recommendations are unimaginative and, we believe, unworkable.”

The president of National Farmers Union Scotland said that the MAC had failed to take account of his organisation’s evidence. He said that the NFUS was very disappointed that the Committee had “not heeded” its “strong evidence” in its recommendations. The NFUS has raised concerns about trade, access to labour and support for agriculture.

Of course, the concerns about the MAC are not just confined to the business and university communities. They have also been expressed by the unions, particularly by the Scottish TUC. Public opinion is also with those of us who bring this issue to the House today. A recent opinion poll in The Herald carried out by ICM said that 62% of people in Scotland support a different immigration solution for Scotland.

I understand the general thrust of the speeches by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Members. There were only a handful of them—

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Debate between Joanna Cherry and Deidre Brock

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an important and rather sad point.

I understand that the definition of DDPO is one where the management committee or board has at least 75% of representation from deaf and disabled people; where at least 50% of its paid staff team are deaf and disabled people, with representation at all levels of the organisation; and where it provides services for, or works on behalf of, deaf and disabled people. Disability charities are not necessarily DPPOs and DPPOs are not necessarily all geared up to work easily with the Government, but will the Minister give a commitment to reach out to them and invite them to the table? That is, after all, one of the recommendations.

I am sure that it has not escaped Whitehall’s notice that there is a recommendation in the report that organisations representing persons with disabilities should be adequately funded. Perhaps that could be addressed early to ensure that the DPPOs can adequately resource their involvement in the Government’s planning.

I do not intend to cover every recommendation—there simply is not the time today—but it might be worth looking at paragraph 25, which indicates that the Government should improve accessibility standards. I remind the Minister that this is Guide Dogs Week and ask whether she might take into account the needs of guide dog users who would like pavement parking to be banned and audio announcements on buses so that they can know where they are. They would also like disability equality training to be provided to public transport providers, including taxi drivers and minicab drivers, along the lines of the training being introduced by the Scottish Government. Will any of that be possible?

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. At the moment, she is emphasising the importance of accessibility rights. Is she aware that the former Paralympian, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, has said that leaving the European Union will prevent British people with disabilities benefiting from upcoming EU legislation on accessibility? Does she agree that we need to be conscious of the fact that EU law has often filled in the gaps in disability protections in the United Kingdom?

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an excellent point. That is certainly an issue of great concern to a large number of organisations that work on behalf of disabled people.

The UN committee also recommends putting in place a proper employment programme for people with disabilities to create decent work opportunities on equal pay scales. Will the Minister tell us that that will happen and assure us that the Government do not intend to change the minimum wage legislation in a way that will disadvantage people with disabilities? Will she clarify the Government’s position on maintaining the same minimum wage for people with disabilities as for other people? I wish there was time to go through all the recommendations, to address each and every one of the points, and to get to the bottom of each of the issues raised in the report. I feel, however, that there may be more benefit in allowing the Minister plenty of time to respond to the points that are being raised, and we can revisit the issues at a later date.

May I make a few final points to which I hope that the Minister will respond? These few are, I think, the most important of all and I would be grateful if the Minister gave them special attention. Paragraph 59 of the report calls for the Personal Independence Payment (Amendment) Regulations 2017 to be repealed. Will she commit the Government to that?