Refugee Family Reunion Rules

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate and on the tone of his contribution. The reference to his family was a powerful way of driving home the point about the cut-off point at age 18. We often say in the House that there is a refugee crisis on a scale not seen since the second world war—and that is right: we have seen the numbers from last year and this year. However, we have a tendency—into which I myself fall—to talk in terms of numbers. Bringing some humanity to the topic is important, and that is what happened when the right hon. Gentleman spoke.

We must remember that refugees are mums, dads, children, brothers, sisters and grandparents, and are all fleeing from persecution over borders in the best way they can in the circumstances. We do not often refer to them, first and foremost, as families, but they are families who are often disintegrated and split because of the circumstances in which they have to leave a particular country or situation. We must always remember that, as it reminds us why we must always distinguish between refugees and others who move—immigrants in the broader sense of the word. We must recognise that it is a different context and set of circumstances, and that different rules ought to apply. One problem is rules that are intended to apply to immigration broadly being applied to the sub-group of refugees.

We must always remember that refugees come from many countries across the world, not just Syria. We often refer to the situation in Syria because it is so terrible, but there are other countries in which there are terrible situations and from which refugees are on the move. One of my concerns, which I have raised with the Minister and in the House a number of times, is about the potential in this country for a debate to emerge that takes a two-tier approach to refugees, with Syrians being seen in one context and other refugees in another. We must keep reminding ourselves to bear in mind not just Syria, but the very many other places from which people are fleeing.

Reunification is a particularly good example of rules intended to apply across the board not working well in relation to refugees. That is why I welcome this debate, the campaign being run by the British Red Cross, and the work of UNICEF and the Refugee Council on unaccompanied children and reunification in particular. I echo the comments of other hon. Members: we need to remember that reunification is important because families want to reunify. We live as families and when we are split and have to cross borders, we want to reunify as families. The family unit is a powerful human need. In this context, by having more flexible, wider rules on family reunification, we limit, at least to some extent, the extent to which people make dangerous journeys that they would not otherwise have to make, because they would have a safe and legal route for getting from where they are to where they need to be to reunify with their families. We must bear both those points in mind.

The reunification rules, like many aspects of the refugee framework, are under strain given the events of the last year or two. However, it is time to look again at the reunification rules in the round. I saw for myself the situation in Calais and Dunkirk earlier this year, where it was evident that there were unaccompanied children. When I went to Calais in January, there were about 130 or so unaccompanied children, but at least they had been counted and identified to the best ability of those who were there.

When I was in Dunkirk—things have changed since I was there—nobody was in a position even to identify and count the number of unidentified children there. That demonstrated the mismatch between the approach we have to children in this country and the approach that was applied in Calais and Dunkirk. When I visited, I went on the Eurostar from London and the journey took one hour. It was extraordinary that there should be a place such as Calais or Dunkirk where there were unaccompanied children who were not being assisted in the way that I would hope they would be if they were in the UK.

In the UK, we have recognised for many years that if children are to exercise their rights to reunification—or, indeed, any rights—somebody has to assist them to do so. It is simply not good enough to say to a child, “There is a mechanism. Why don’t you access it?” There has to be somebody to assist in that process.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am sorry to have missed the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My hon. and learned Friend will know from his visit to Calais of the concern about the 157 unaccompanied children, all of whom appear to have links with families in this country.

In the Bishop of Durham’s evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday, he said in answer to a question I put that he believed that the children should already be here. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that where links can be demonstrated and have been established—not as a matter of rule, otherwise it will encourage more people just to send their children—the children ought to be allowed to join their families here?

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, they should be allowed to join their families here. The rules provide for that and they need to be effectively applied. That means somebody assisting in the process on the ground. I was particularly struck at Dunkirk that there were simply no officials at all in the camp when I was there. The only officials were gendarmes on the gate, whose sole function was to stop people bringing pallets on to the site, which they wanted because the ground was so wet that they simply needed to get the tents off the ground. That was the only official presence in Dunkirk.

It is not just about the right to reunification; it is about that being within a reasonable timeframe. Months go by and that is a long time for a child. Those children are on their own and they are particularly vulnerable. We have had debates about the number of children missing in Europe; some months ago, Europol put out a figure of 10,000. Time is measured differently by children, as we all know, and those children are not only young, but vulnerable. They should not be in parts of Europe or the rest of the world without assistance. This is about the speed of the exercise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate; I was speaking in a debate on carers in the main Chamber. To follow up the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the shadow Minister noted that we need someone in place to help. Almost 1 million Christian refugees have left Syria and have been dispersed not just across Turkey, but across the whole of Europe. Some of those are young families and young individual children. May I suggest that one group that could, should and would be keen to help is the church? Will the Minister, in his reply to the shadow Minister, look at that as a possible solution to trying to find a family background for the many children who have been left on their own and who are isolated and vulnerable at Calais and elsewhere across Europe?

[Keir Starmer]

Of course the churches should, and do, play a part in providing support, as do many others. There are people in the camps across Europe who are trying to provide the best support they can, and that is welcome. It is, of course, a tall order to provide the help wherever it is needed, but that goes to the question of how many staff are deployed and where. In a sense, we need to step back, take a look at the rules and the reunification framework in the round, and review it across the board.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly emphasises the importance of time, particularly for children. He will be aware that a few months ago four or five children from the camps were admitted, thanks to a tribunal ruling, on human rights grounds because the Dublin procedure was so slow. Does he agree that one option for the British Government, rather than challenging that decision, would be to implement it more widely? That way, rather than having to wait for the children to go through the French process first and then make a take-charge request, the children could be brought to the UK straight away.

[Keir Starmer]

That challenge was brought by, among others, lawyers working in Doughty Street Chambers—the chambers that I am still associated with. I think the children arrived in St Pancras, which is in my constituency. That demonstrated how quickly things could happen if a court approved the process. In fairness, it is not for me to tell the Minister what approach the Government should take to the appeal, but clearly speed is of the essence. There have to be practical and effective ways for children and their families to exercise the rights to which they are entitled. It is marked that there are still children relatively near, in parts of northern Europe, who have a right to reunification here but that the process is working far too slowly.

It is often said that when we respond to refugee children on their own, in Europe or elsewhere, there is a risk that if too much is done, it will encourage others to follow their path. I have been very cautious about that argument for two reasons. First, although when we talk about immigration more widely we might have to engage with the pull factor argument, when we talk about refugees we should recognise and focus on the push factors. Refugees are fleeing. Over the years, families have split as they have fled across borders. Secondly, there are children right here, right now who are already on their own in different parts of the world. For my part, and I expect for everyone else, I am not going to say, “We mustn’t extend the support that they need right here, right now lest others follow in their wake.”

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way to me a second time. I agree with him, but does he not agree that we need to be careful about messages? The first people who pick up such messages are the people traffickers and the organised criminal gangs, and we simply have not done enough to address those gangs. They are the people who are able to transport individuals, and they are the people who prey on the vulnerable. They never put their lives at risk in the Mediterranean. We and our EU partners, including Frontex, need to do much more to deal with them.

[Keir Starmer]

I heartily agree and endorse every word. Ultimately, the refugee crisis will be addressed effectively only if we start at the very top, which means de-escalating the violence, and then work upstream to stop the work of those who are engaged in trafficking and putting people through the illegal and dangerous routes. I completely agree with that. In a sense, what we are discussing this afternoon is what we do much further down the line, when people and children have arrived in Europe. I am simply cautioning against the argument that has been made in the House when we have debated similar issues—although not in today’s debate—that it would somehow be wrong in principle to provide the support and assistance that is needed in Europe lest other people follow.

The problems highlighted by the British Red Cross’s campaign are real. Where over-18s were living with their family before the family split and fled across the world because of persecution, they are, of course, over the age of 18, but still vulnerable and still wanting to reunify with their family for the reasons powerfully put earlier in the debate. Refugee children not being able to sponsor family members is an issue where there simply is not sufficient flexibility to address the injustices that arise. There is the unresolved question of wider family members beyond mothers, fathers and children, and there is the problem of there having been no legal aid since 2013. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I take it particularly seriously that since 2013 it has been difficult to mount effective challenges unless lawyers are prepared to act on a pro bono basis, which is not how we should be proceeding on such issues in this country.

Labour has pressed these issues. Our amendment 122A to the Immigration Bill was defeated in the House of Lords, so there have been efforts, but it is good that we are debating the issue again today—not to resurrect those discussions in the other place, but to step back and ask: is it now time for that wider review? I call on the Government to look at and review the entire framework for family reunification, and I ask the Minister to make a commitment to that effect and to update us on the ongoing review of the Dublin III arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I myself have said regularly how good the Syrian refugee proposal is and how well it is working. I agree that the Minister is doing a good job there, and I have said that before. The concern is the other refugees. A Syrian child who came here alone would suffer, not being able to bring their parents here. I am increasingly concerned about that sense of a two-tier approach.

[Richard Harrington]

I have every sympathy with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. It is a feeling that a lot of emphasis has gone into one programme but not into others. I hope to convince him—if not now, then at other times as the process proceeds—that that is not the case, but it is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I understand the argument that when immigration figures are published, they should exclude refugees and asylum seekers. It is an arguable case, but those people should surely be included within the net number of people coming into the country. For whatever reason those people come, they are still people coming into the country. In my opinion, that does not in any way take away from the validity of us taking people from the situations they find themselves in abroad.

[Keir Starmer]

It is not just about the inclusion of these people in the number; it is also about having a policy driven by one thing—driving that net migration number down. That is wrong when it comes to refugees, and that is why they should be taken out and looked at separately. The number is self-defining; it is the number of people crossing the border. That is the deeper concern here.

[Richard Harrington]

I understood the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was making. I see the argument to separate the two figures. Those who read the detail of the migration figures—it is a small number of people, and unfortunately most of them are not publishers or editors of national newspapers—see the breakdown beneath. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and other Members interested in the subject read that breakdown. The point is valid, but however the figures are printed or published, I am afraid the media and so, one has to accept, the general population who get their information from the media will take the number in the round. It is others who accept the breakdown.

So many things in Government are a balance. Most of us who go into Parliament, Government and public service do things with exactly the right intention. That is certainly what I have found in my comparatively short period of involvement. I do not think anyone would become a Member of Parliament or, I specifically hope, a Minister in this field if they did not have a lot of compassion for people desperately wanting to come into this country and others. Everything in Government is a balance, however, whether that is financial or in terms of having some form of policy—not everything can be an exception to that policy, but the policy has to try to allow some exceptions. I believe that the number of people coming in under family reunification from the various sources will increase significantly, but in a proper, measured way. There is flexibility within Dublin and the immigration rules to facilitate that.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, for bringing these issues before us. I am happy to meet with them or anyone else to discuss this matter.

UNHCR: Admission Pathways for Syrian Refugees

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Crausby. I also thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for bringing this issue before Westminster Hall. She spoke powerfully in support of the motion, as did many other Members. I pay tribute to those who contributed to this debate. Not all debates in Westminster Hall are of high quality, but the contributions today really were—particularly the points about the plight of the Yazidi women. Like others, I hope the points made today will influence the approach the Minister takes in the meeting in two weeks’ time. That would be the best outcome of this debate.

The nature of the challenge is clear. Many hon. Members have already spoken of the figures, but it is worth reminding ourselves that 13.5 million Syrians are in need of help in-country, 6.6 million are internally displaced and 4.6 million or so have fled abroad. These are huge numbers and the UNHCR has made clear asks in response to them. Initially, it asked states to help 30,000 people to be relocated by the end of 2014. Then it asked for an additional 100,000 to be helped by the end of 2016, and in two weeks, the number is likely to go up, not down. Furthermore, to be clear, the UNHCR is asking for help with those individuals for whom there is no durable solution—those for whom voluntary repatriation and local integration are not possible: the most vulnerable, with nowhere else to go.

Against the scale of that challenge, the UK response has been slow, reluctant and limited. Just to remind ourselves, back in 2013 and 2014 the initial response of the UK was simply to provide aid to Syria’s neighbours, not to take any refugees ourselves. That was our starting position: assistance, but not receiving refugees.

[Mrs Spelman]

Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who was an aid worker, is no longer present to support this point, but professional aid agencies will always say that in the first instance it is better to give aid in the region where the disaster has occurred, because people are then more likely to go back to their homes and to help to rebuild their country. I am sure that was the rationale that drove the Government’s initial response.

[Keir Starmer]

I accept that proposition—that has been the UNHCR position for many years—but I am now plotting the response to the UNHCR ask. It was asking specifically about individuals who cannot be dealt with locally—those who cannot be repatriated or locally integrated. I made that point before I came to the response, because it is only one thing to assist in-region, in the way the UNHCR has suggested; what we are discussing today is the response to the ask for countries to do something about those who cannot be dealt with in that way.

That was the initial response; early in 2014, the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme was set up, but it was limited and focused only on victims of sexual violence and torture. It was only extended in 2015—that was the next step—when the Government agreed to take 20,000 Syrians over five years, but none of them from Europe. There was another extension earlier this year, in January, when the Government agreed to look more carefully at unaccompanied children, but again not from Europe.

That is why I say that the UK response has been slow, reluctant and limited. We have been around this block before. I know that the Minister will say, “Well, that shows we’re listening,” but when we look back, we see that the changes in response have usually been a reaction to pressure inside and outside this House on particular issues.

[Mr Burrowes]

I do not want to limit the Government’s commitment of 20 January. It was a commitment to unaccompanied children in the region in conflict zones, but also in Europe, to provide safety, whether in the camp areas or through resettlement in this country.

[Keir Starmer]

I looked carefully at what was said in January, and I have followed it up since. I think it is fair to say that at the moment no scheme or plan is in place for taking unaccompanied children from Europe. I hope that is the next development and, if it is, I would welcome it.

Having criticised the Government’s response for being too slow, too reluctant and too limited, may I add this? Two weeks ago, I was up in Glasgow, where I met Paul Morrison, who heads up the Syrian resettlement programme, and two of the Syrian families who have been relocated. The work going on in Glasgow under the resettlement scheme is first class. The Government are to be praised for the scheme as far as those who have been relocated here are concerned. It is well run, children have been integrated into schools, the families have been found doctors, they have proper support in the community and the people of Glasgow have been welcoming and supportive. Where the scheme is operating, it operates well, and I pay tribute to the Minister and those working with him for that.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern, however, about reports of substandard housing and inhumane treatment of asylum seekers in Glasgow? Will he join me in urging the Home Office to commission an urgent, independent inquiry into that?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, which anticipates my next point. Of growing concern is the sense of that there is a two-tier system. Those who are being relocated under the voluntary Syrian resettlement programme are being treated well and properly, and I commend that. On the other hand, I have met unaccompanied children, again in Glasgow, who had made their own way to this country and surfaced in Scotland, and their experience was very different. Initially they really struggled to prove their age—one was even detained—and then to obtain housing.

On a separate visit, to Oldham, I met a 26-year-old Syrian woman architect who had made her own way to this country. Although she has refugee status, she was struggling to get support for housing, so this is one for the future for the Government. The scheme itself is working well, but there is a two-tier system, because the conditions that others coming here to seek asylum have to endure are very different. That is worthy of another debate in due course.

March obviously offers an opportunity for the Government to go further. Of course the long-term solution is a reduction in the conflict in Syria—we must never lose sight of that. Today, we are debating what we do about the consequences of that conflict. In March, the Government can go further in four particular areas. First, there is growing pressure for us to take more than the 20,000 pledged so far. I agree with the comments about the Government being out of sync with the public mood on that. The public accept that we should be doing more for vulnerable refugees.

While we are on the subject of numbers, I also think it is wrong to have a fixed 20,000 over five years, because that does not allow flexibility for a changing situation. There is already a need to take more, and the position should be reviewed year on year, rather than committing to a five-year programme, which simply does not fit with the nature of a conflict such as that in Syria.

Secondly, it is time to move on the almost universal bar against anyone having reached Europe. The idea that if refugees reach Europe, they are a problem for Europe and we should not take them as refugees is wrong in principle. We must review that. There should not be a hard block on anyone who has reached Europe.

Thirdly, much more work is needed to reunite families. That has been touched on by a number of hon. Members in the debate. I, too, have been to Calais and to Dunkirk, and Dunkirk is even more distressing than Calais. The implementation of family reunification rules, even if theoretically available under international law, is simply not working on the ground. I have made the point before, and I will continue to make it. In Calais and Dunkirk I saw volunteers trying their level best to keep people alive, safe and well in trying conditions. By their own admission, they were unable to help with the reunification process, which is complicated and difficult, so it is not working on the ground and needs to be looked at again urgently.

The fourth area is of course unaccompanied children. In Calais, the volunteers have a sense of the number of unaccompanied children, but in Dunkirk the volunteers told me that they cannot even count them, because they do not have the resources to work out who the children are. Children there desperately need help. More work needs to be done on unaccompanied children in Europe.

Finally, there is the bigger picture, which is about safe and legal routes. I join with those saying that there is an exam question in relation to certain groups—the Yazidi women would be one. How do we provide safe and legal passage for very vulnerable people to find safety in Europe?

I hope that the Minister takes everything in the right spirit. The debate is intended to influence the position that he may take—it is a nudge, pull and influence situation. The Government have made moves; more would be very welcome.

Non-EU Citizens: Income Threshold

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I wish the attendance was rather better. I do not want to score any political points, but I do think that a fairly nasty and pernicious little proposal is being put forward and it is incumbent on us all to encourage our colleagues to take this a little more seriously and show more interest in it.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will of course. Perhaps a meeting is going on that I do not know about.

[Keir Starmer]

I let that comment go the first time, but hon. Members will see on the screen that in the main Chamber at the moment there is a debate on a Home Office Bill, in which very many of my colleagues are down to speak. It is unfortunate that there is a clash, but it is not fair to read into that a lack of interest in this debate. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has seen the screen and realised that that Bill is now being debated in the main Chamber.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point. As I said, I am genuinely not trying to score a political point. I am simply saying that we need to encourage colleagues to take more interest in this debate, this subject and this proposal in particular.

Since my election to the House, I have discovered that this is a place rich in irony, and I have been overloaded with it today. I have come to this debate from Portcullis House, where I was at an exhibition of scientists, engineers and technologists, who are trying to show Parliament pioneering work in which they are involved. I met three young people working at Edinburgh University on doctorates. One was from England, one from Italy and one from the United States of America. I am fairly confident that if this little proposal goes through, we will have to say to Laura Underwood, who is pioneering clean water technology at the University of Edinburgh, that if she is successful in discovering something new in that technology, she will not be welcome to stay in this country and realise that and get a job to develop it unless she is earning more than £35,000 a year, which in a first-time job, when someone has just graduated, is pretty near impossible. If some people in the House get their way and we manage to pull out of and turn our backs on the European Union, down the line we would have to say something similar to Enrico Anderlini, who is working on developing new forms of wave technology—that he would not be welcome here as an Italian unless he was earning £35,000 a year, which for a young 20-something is pretty hard to do. It is very ironic indeed that I should come from that gathering to discuss a policy that seems to be set up to put a major hurdle in front of such people.

I am here today because more than 1,000 of my constituents have signed this petition and because many people have written to me, giving examples of what the proposal will mean for them as individuals. I think—I welcome some of the comments so far—that we need to change the whole way in which we debate immigration in this country and we need to start in this Chamber by setting the pace and setting an example of how that should be done. Immigration is undeniably a good thing for our economy; it is a good thing for our communities, and it is a good thing for humanity and the individuals who are involved in that process. If we had not had immigration or migration over the centuries, this world would be a much more miserable and unliveable place than it is today, so I would be glad if we could at least try to couch the debate in positive terms.

I note the statistic that has been thrown up in the debate that net migration—this is seen as a horrible thing—was about one third of a million people last year. I thought to myself on the train down this morning, “Well, how much is that really?” It is about one in every 200 people in the United Kingdom, so in a town of, say, 20,000 people, it would mean that 100 people have come over the last year to live in that place. I cannot square that statistic with the thoughts in some people’s minds about our being overrun by alien hordes or alien cultures and the country’s being swamped by migrants. That is clearly ludicrous, so we could at least get a sense of perspective.

I understand that in some communities, among some of our citizens, there is deep apprehension about migration. I understand in particular that many of the people who are living at the margins of society and who feel themselves to have very little are susceptible to the argument that says, “You can’t afford to be generous to people from elsewhere in the world. You need to be hard-faced about this and turn your backs on these people.” I do not agree with that approach, but I can understand why some people will develop it. It concerns me that we have politicians who want to manipulate that prejudice and who, rather than confronting with evidence the assumptions on which it is based, pander to it and try to use it for political capital. That is all of us going to hell in a handcart if we do not pull back from that general direction.

Although I can understand that type of feeling when it comes to whether we should take tens of thousands of refugees fleeing warzones in the third world, I cannot for one minute understand that when it comes to the question of tier 2 visas. Tier 2 visas, let us remind ourselves, are given to people who are coming to work here in a job that has already been advertised locally and that no one living in the area wants to take, so how that can be described as anything other than a positive benefit and contribution to our economy and our community, I do not know.

I want to question—the Minister will perhaps answer this—the rationale, the logic, behind saying that people have to earn a certain amount of money, a certain salary, to be able to come here, but a different amount of money, a different salary, to be able to stay here. That seems ludicrous; and the £35,000 a year figure is arbitrary. I need to hear the justification for it, because it certainly does not work in my constituency—in my city. It takes no account whatever of regional variations within the United Kingdom in employment and in salaries. Whereas there might be places in the middle of London where £35,000 is regarded as some sort of miserly salary, I can tell hon. Members that it is regarded as a very good salary indeed in my constituency. If we set that as the limit, all that will do is further imbalance the UK economy towards London and the south-east and those areas that are already sucking the lifeblood out of it, so I would caution people when thinking about trying to manipulate migration to this country so that it favours London and the south-east rather than the rest of the country.

The proposal also demonstrates no recognition of different industries. A constituent wrote to me and said, “This seems to indicate that the Secretary of State has a value system behind this—that they view some jobs as more important than others and that if someone is working in banking or finance and earning a good salary, they are regarded as inherently more valuable and someone we would want more than someone who is working in a lower-paid job in our public services or in the arts and creative industries.”

I want to make the point in particular about the arts and creative industries. This issue is particularly relevant to a city such as Edinburgh, a metropolitan, bustling city with people from all over the world, doing all sorts of exciting things and fuelling our great festivals. Many people in this Chamber will have attended those festivals and enjoyed them. That is partly because it is a welcoming place to come and we do not say to people, “To practise the arts here, you have to be in a job earning £35,000 a year, or you can’t do it.” As soon as we begin to do that, not only will that culture begin to ebb away and things will get that much duller, less creative and less exciting as a result, but other cities, in other countries, will directly benefit from that because people will go elsewhere.

Of all the petitions that I have ever seen come to this House, this one is the most eminently reasonable. If we read what the petitioners want, we see that they are not saying, “Oh, throw out the Government’s immigration policy.” They are not even saying, “Overturn and throw out the concept of having to reach a salary threshold before people can get indefinite leave to remain.” They are saying, “Press the pause button. Take a look at this again, and wait to get some evidence in particular about whether a different limit should apply to different industries.” I cannot for the life of me see anything more reasonable than that, and I think that not only should we consider it, as we do in these debates in Westminster Hall; I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will consider it to the extent that they will think again and go away and amend this policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Like others, I welcome the debate and the valuable contributions made by hon. Members. Clearly, there is public concern about this policy, which has not been debated in the House. It was introduced by statutory instrument, albeit followed by a consultation. I, too, pay tribute to the Stop35k campaign that has helped to raise awareness and highlighted a number of consequences that could stem from the Government’s policy.

This afternoon, we have heard about the concerns from businesses and employers who recognise the potential economic consequences of the policy, as well as from teachers, nurses and trade unions who are rightly concerned about the impact it could have on key public services. Labour supports an immigration system that has control and fairness at its heart, but we also recognise that, as businesses across the country have told me, there are very serious skills shortages in our economy that we increasingly rely on skilled migrants to fill. We would like the need for skilled migration to be reduced, but the policy’s focus should be to upskill local workforces to reduce the long-term need for skilled migration. That is the best way to reduce immigration in the long term.

[Carol Monaghan]

To upskill the local population we need workers in key areas who will now be excluded, such as in teaching science, technology, engineering and maths and in lectureship positions. It will be almost impossible to upskill people who are living here without immigration for those key positions.

[Keir Starmer]

I accept the thrust of the hon. Lady’s point, and I will point out why the current policy is neither sensible nor sustainable, but the upskilling of the local workforce is much needed in the long term. Wherever I go across the country, I see a yawning gap between the skills that are needed in our businesses and our industry and the skills that are available locally, which points to a much wider issue than the narrow issue, framed in immigration terms, that we are addressing today. Labour’s position is that we should focus on upskilling the local workforce rather than relying on such a policy.

We recognise the concerns of the public, businesses, universities and, frankly, pretty well everyone else about the Government’s current approach to immigration. I remind Members that the Government’s net migration cap, which has already been mentioned—in fact, the primary aim of the Government’s immigration policy—is now in tatters. The latest figures show net migration at 323,000, which is more than three times the Prime Minister’s “no ifs, no buts” target. That is embarrassing for him but, more importantly, it is eroding public trust and is resulting in perverse consequences—this policy would be one of those perverse consequences—that are affecting British businesses and the British economy.

As we have heard today, the cap is leading the Government to clamp down even on those areas of migration that they acknowledge are likely to boost gross domestic product, fill skills gaps and support public services, which is a perverse consequence of the policy. The groups affected by the policy are those in work who have an approved visa sponsor and who have contributed to the UK economy and society over a number of years. Analysis of the group of individuals who currently would not meet the £35,000 threshold, the group most affected by the policy, shows that their mean income is £27,300. On any estimate, they are net contributors to the UK economy. They are the very people we should be welcoming to the UK, and they are filling skills gaps on which businesses and public services rely.

The Migration Advisory Committee’s assessment estimates that the threshold

“will reduce the numbers qualifying by around 16% per annum”.

That is the overall number, but the threshold will have a disproportionate impact on certain groups. The committee estimates that, as has already been mentioned, 48% of migrant nurses will be affected. Some 37% of migrant primary school teachers, 35% of migrant IT and software professionals and 9% of migrant secondary school teachers will also be excluded by the policy. The Department for Education made a critical submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence on the policy in 2011, warning that:

“If migrant teachers are required to leave the country after five years, this will present risks to the quality of teaching and incur further public expenditure on the training and recruitment of new teachers.”

That is the perverse impact.

Regional issues have also been mentioned, and I will stay with teaching. In London, there is a fair chance of a teacher reaching the £35,000 threshold in five years, but that is much less likely outside London, but the contribution and quality of input could be precisely the same in both cases. Obviously, like others, Labour welcomes the fact that nursing is currently on the shortage occupation list. Will the Government confirm that that will remain the case? We need to know, and it is a real concern for the national health service and the nursing professions. Nothing has been said to provide reassurance to the teaching profession, which will be affected in the way I have set out.

We recognise that there are strong arguments for addressing skills gaps in our economy, but the Government have failed to do so, and much more needs to be done. That is why we believe that the Government should urgently focus on improving skills training and vocational education to address those skills gaps, but businesses and unions have made it clear that an arbitrary limit that cuts off skilled migrant workers is a form of economic vandalism. I remind Members of the Government’s impact assessment, which states that the impact will be a loss to the UK economy, on the figures I have seen, of £288 million over 10 years—that is the adverse impact on business. I checked with the Library, which confirmed that that is the Government’s most up-to-date estimate. The independent Migration Advisory Committee also warned in 2012:

“As skilled migrant workers are expected to have a positive dynamic impact on growth over the long-run, we would expect reductions in skilled Tier 2 migrants to have a negative dynamic impact on per capita growth.”

Does the Minister accept those figures and the Government’s own figure that the policy will cost the economy £288 million over 10 years?

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps explained why many of his colleagues are not on the Back Benches today. Perhaps some of his figures explain why not very many Government Back Benchers are here to defend this ridiculous policy.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention because my point is on the adverse impact on business, and I will go on to address the minimal effect of the policy even in the Government’s own terms. We have the Government’s figure, which I have checked with the Library, and I am told that there is no more up-to-date estimate other than that the policy will cost the economy £288 million over 10 years. The Government’s justification for the policy, and therefore, in effect, for the damage that it will cause the economy, is that it will make

“a modest contribution to the Government’s target of reducing net migration to sustainable levels.”

So it is the old net migration target that is producing the perverse impacts. Drilling into that target, I remind Members that the Government’s impact assessment estimates that the introduction of the threshold will reduce overall net migration by between nought and 4,000 a year. We have the prospect of damage to the economy in the realm of £288 million over 10 years, with an estimated reduction in net migration that could be nothing or, at most, 4,000 a year in the best-case scenario. On current figures, that would simply reduce net migration from 323,000 to 319,000. Again, I have checked the figure of between nought and 4,000 for the estimated overall impact per year with the Library. Does the Minister accept that figure?

The Government are asking the House to agree a policy that will cost the country millions of pounds a year, deprive businesses and services of key workers and force people who are making an economic and social contribution to the UK to leave the country. If that is not a good example of unintended consequences flowing from an immigration policy designed to create headlines rather than address the country’s immigration needs, I cannot think of many better. Would it not be better to drop this misguided policy and ring-fence some of the money saved to help boost skills and vocational training for local workers?

Labour supports a compassionate and controlled immigration policy. We also believe that there is scope to consider how the link between temporary work and indefinite leave to remain works. We will continue to push the necessity of long-term focus on skills and training, but we will not support policies that harm the economy, deprive public services of key workers and have next to no impact on net migration. Unless the Government can provide updated, materially different estimates for the policy, we cannot support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I answer that by restating that the consensus is that this country has a significant skill shortage, and that it is easier—this is a question of fact, whatever values one adds to it—to get people with skills from abroad rather than train staff oneself.

[Keir Starmer]

How does the policy, under which an employer could simply sponsor in another person earning under £35,000 to fill the job that has just been vacated by the person leaving, help the skill shortage in this country?

[Richard Harrington]

If employers want long-term employees, they will have to concentrate on training them here. In the short term, the hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right.

The Government consulted on reforming the rules for settlement in 2011, as we do not believe that there should be an automatic link between coming to the UK to work temporarily and staying permanently. That is common in most countries: there is a difference between temporary work and permanent settlement rights.

The minimum earnings threshold was set following advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. The main purpose of the tier 2 category is to support the UK economy, not to provide migrants with a route to settlement. While the MAC considered a number of alternative criteria, such as age or qualifications, it advised—this is where some hon. Members would have disagreed with it—that the strongest indicator of economic value is salary, and those migrants earning more than a given amount are more likely to make the biggest contributions to the UK economy in future. There may be exceptions to that, but fundamentally I believe that in the majority of situations, that is the case.

Tier 2 is reserved for those filling graduate-level jobs; that is what it is for. The figure of £35,000 a year was not invented by politicians from nowhere; it was worked out professionally by the MAC to be equivalent to the median UK pay in skilled jobs that qualified for tier 2 at the time of the MAC’s consultation in 2011. Hon. Members should be aware that the most recent research that the MAC has carried out means that the equivalent figure today would be £39,000.

The MAC has also identified evidence of a wage premium for migrant workers with specialist skills that are in short supply. On average, tier 2 migrants—that is, general migrants—earn an extra £3,000 per annum compared with UK workers with similar characteristics.

However, the Government recognise that salary is not always the strongest measure of the importance of a job, a point made very strongly by many Scottish National party Members who have spoken today. I thank all the SNP Members who are here for coming to this debate, because without them there would be comparatively few Members here. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made the point that this debate unfortunately coincides with a Second Reading debate on the Policing and Crime Bill, but I still thank the SNP Members for coming to this debate.

Within tier 2, there are exemptions for migrants working in a PhD-level occupation, for example, university researchers, and for those working in recognised shortage occupations. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) gave the example of a university researcher in the field of clean water technology and said that she would have to leave her job. As I say, there are exemptions for PhD-level occupations—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I would like briefly to respond to the points about the notice period. The view was expressed that it was unfair that people who had come here to work believing that it would lead to settlement had no idea about the changes that were going through. The Government made it clear that new rules would apply to migrants who entered tier 2 from 6 April 2011, and employers have had time to prepare for the possibility that their workers might not meet the required salary threshold for remaining in the UK. Workers who cannot meet the threshold may extend their stay in tier 2 for up to six years and may, during that period, apply to switch into any other immigration route for which they are eligible. It is not on or off, black or white; there is a transitional period.

I know that hon. Members recognise the importance of sustainable immigration. We must ensure that the UK economy can thrive while also reducing pressures on schools, hospitals, accommodation, transport and social services. We believe that the minimum earnings threshold for settlement under tier 2 ensures that the tier 2 route plays its part in the Government’s overall strategy to control net migration and that settlement is reserved for those who provide the greatest economic benefit to the UK.

[Keir Starmer]

I do not think that the Minister has touched on the impact on net migration. I am reading from the impact assessment, signed off by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green):

“We estimate that these restrictions on settlement will lead to some reductions in net migration of between 0 and 4,000 per year”.

Does the Minister accept that the policy could have no impact on net migration? That must be inferred from the impact assessment.

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. and learned Gentleman would expect, I do not accept that. That impact assessment was from the previous Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). I would like hon. Members to look at the policy in two years’ time and see its effects.

In part based on my many years’ experience as an employer—I am proud to have had many employees from all sorts of backgrounds—I think that the policy will make a significant difference to the number of skilled UK residents being employed here while, at the same time, because of the significant exemptions regarding qualifications and shortages, allowing reasonable numbers of skilled and qualified people to come here. I do not agree with the shadow Minister’s view and I think that, in time, the policy will be seen to be sensible, reasonable and measured.

Refugees: UK Government Policy

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairladyship, Mrs Main. [Interruption.] I am taking my lead from the SNP.

This is an important debate. We have had three debates today on aspects of the refugee crisis, which is clearly the issue of our time. I will not take up time by repeating the numbers, because I know the Minister wants to respond to some of the questions that have been put to him. Millions of people have fled Syria, as everybody knows. Millions are registered as asylum seekers in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and now of course in Greece and Italy. There are millions, taken together. We stand at a moment when the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the EU are calling on the international community for a collective response to a huge crisis. We have not seen a crisis of this size and order for many generations.

I pay tribute to the work of this Minister in particular—the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees—in this field, and to what the Government have done. The steps that have been taken are welcome. However, in 20 years’ time chapters in history books will be written about this moment in world history, in European history and in our own history, and I have concerns that—on reflection and looking back—our response will be judged as reluctant and limited, and in comparison with others not fair and not proportionate.

I just remind hon. Members that, back in January 2014, we agreed only to aid the neighbours of Syria in their efforts but not to have any part in the resettlement scheme at all. That work was extended in 2014 but only in relation to vulnerable persons—broadly speaking, those who had suffered sexual violence and torture—and it was expected that a few hundred people might resettle. Then, in September 2015, there was the resettlement programme for 20,000 Syrians.

Those steps were all welcome, but all of them were, in truth, a response to overwhelming pressure from the public, the media and the Opposition in this House. The same is true in relation to unaccompanied children. There has been a debate about this issue for some weeks. There was a statement just a few weeks ago, but again it was more limited than many of us had hoped for. There is the sense of reluctant and limited steps being taken, welcome though those steps are.

There are a number of questions for the Minister to deal with now and in the coming weeks and months. The first is this: can the hard stop line about Europe really be maintained any more? In other words, can we really say that we have no responsibility to deal with those people who have arrived in Europe and that we simply have to put the burden on the states where they are now, and play no part in relocation? I understand why it is important not to undermine the Dublin III agreement, but on the other hand there are countries that are clearly struggling with the number of people they have, and I wonder whether that hard stop line can be justified for very much longer.

I also raise again the question of unaccompanied children. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said about this issue, and it is an argument that is made about the influence that our action might have on future action. However, we have to face up to the fact that these children are in Europe right now, unaccompanied, and they are desperate, and the push-pull factors do not apply to them, as others have already said. Also, a number of these children are disappearing. Are we really going to stand here and say that, for fear of what might happen in the future, we will do nothing for them now? I am very uncomfortable that, as a country, that could possibly be our position, and I think that view is shared across the House in different ways and with different forces.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

[Keir Starmer]

Of course.

[Bob Stewart]

I will be very quick.

[Bob Stewart]

I will take seconds. Unaccompanied children need to be properly processed, because if we act too fast they might never see their parents or their other relatives again. We have to get that processing right.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention and I agree.

I will use up my remaining 30 seconds simply to say that whatever processes are applied, either to unaccompanied children or to adult asylum seekers arriving in this country, they have to be better managed than they are now. There are disproportionate burdens in different areas, and we have to address that sooner rather than later. Also, as we debated this morning in relation to accommodation, there are real concerns about the way that services and accommodation are being provided to asylum seekers.

These are big questions, but they are the questions of our time.

Syrian Refugees: Resettlement

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I know that a number of—

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is a normal courtesy for those who have taken part in the debate to remain present throughout the winding-up speeches. It is not considered courteous to leave the debate during the winding-up speeches, but if any hon. Member does so, he will find that he is not called in subsequent debates. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order.

[Keir Starmer]

A number of hon. Members have asked specific questions of the Minister. Therefore, I will be brief so that he gets the chance to give answers to the questions that people want answered.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), not only on securing the debate but on the tone and content of her contribution at the start. I, too, have been to the camp in Calais. I went just three weeks ago. I went to Calais and to Dunkirk, and the conditions there are truly appalling. That is the case particularly at Dunkirk, which—for those hon. Members who have not been—is basically a forest in which there is a swamp. On the ground is mud, water, urine and everything else that one would expect to find mixed in when there are no toilets or running water. In the middle of that, on any piece of semi-firm soil, are pitched flimsy tents. I do not think that anybody could go in any capacity to those camps and not come back a changed person.

Of course, the camps include Syrians among other nationalities. That is not surprising. The figures have already been given. More than half of the pre-war population of Syria are in need of help—13.5 million of 22 million—6.6 million people are internally displaced and 4.3 million have fled abroad, so there are Syrians in Dunkirk, Calais and many other places across Europe. I saw there—in Dunkirk in particular—in the flimsy tents, settling down for the night, at 4.30 because there is no electricity and no lights and it was getting dark, children the same age as my own. I met individuals such as the Iraqi Kurd who showed me around. He explained that he had fled with his family because he was given an ultimatum by ISIS as it was coming into his town to join it or die. He ran for his life with such of his family as he could and is now in Dunkirk.

I acknowledge everything that the Minister has done in his brief so far. He will know just how important language is. I ask him, for that Iraqi Kurd and the others in the camps, whether he will distance himself from what I thought were disappointing comments from the Prime Minister this morning when he described people in those camps as “a bunch of migrants”. Some of the people in the camps will have been deeply disappointed and hurt to have been described in that way, because they hold our politicians—our leaders—in very high esteem.

May I touch on a couple of issues of process? In those camps and others across Europe, among the Syrians who have fled are individuals who are undoubtedly entitled, under the Dublin III arrangements, to be reunited with their families already in the UK, yet on the ground it is clear that that process is not working; it is not working in Calais or Dunkirk. I ask the Minister whether it is possible to have an urgent review of the Dublin III arrangements—the practical operation on the ground.

The voluntary resettlement programme was started, I think, in January 2014 and extended in September 2015 to the 20,000 Syrian refugees. That is welcome. On all sides, we should always say that it is welcome that that initiative has been taken by the Government; and the Government are right to ensure and insist that there are proper arrangements for those arriving, so that they can be housed, they have proper welfare, they have proper support and they have education. Given the various contributions made today, it may be time to review quite how and where people are located, but it is a very welcome initiative.

It was perhaps wrong to fix a cap in 2015 when we do not know what will happen during the next five years. I hope that the number can be revisited, because all the predictions are for a greater number of refugees next year even though we have already had a record year. We may need to come back to the 20,000 figure to see whether it needs to be revised.

I do ask the Minister and the Government—I have done so on a number of occasions—to give serious consideration to the question of unaccompanied children. There are 26,000 across Europe; 3,000 have been specifically identified by Save the Children and others. These are children on their own in Europe. Some may well have the right to be reunited with people in this country. It is probably unlikely to be their mother and father, but could be more distant family. This is Holocaust Memorial Day—a very important day when we consider children on their own in Europe. I ask the Government to look very seriously at the now very powerful case for taking some among that number of unaccompanied children.

I will turn now to two issues raised by other Members. When asylum seekers arrive in this country, whether from Syria or elsewhere, it is important that they are treated with dignity and respect. We have had, for the second week running, examples of treatment that has not been thought through and is deeply offensive to anybody with any experience of working with and for refugees. The red doors policy in Middlesbrough was raised in the House last week, and it was the wristbands in Cardiff this week. We need to appreciate several important points in those cases. Both examples have come to the attention of the House and been debated only because of the work of journalists. As I understand it, a Home Office inspection regime looks at the arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure the quality and so on of the accommodation and support that they are given. I called last week, and I call again now, for an urgent review of the arrangements to ensure that those sorts of crass arrangements are weeded out as fast as possible and to ensure that they were confined to Middlesbrough and Cardiff—in other words, to check that similar practices in other parts of the country will not come to the attention of the House in future weeks. Such a review is much needed.

I return to where I started. The steps that have been taken so far are welcome and should be supported on all sides, but it is time for the Government to look at whether we can go further in a number of material respects.

Immigration

Keir Starmer Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Walker, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I assure you that I do not intend to take more than about 10 or 15 minutes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for facilitating the debate.

I echo some of the comments made about the petition and urge the Petitions Committee to look again at how petitions are brought forward for debate. I do understand that it is difficult to get the balance right between petitions that we might think more worthy of debate and others. It is worth going back to have another look at the guidelines, but I do not mean that as a criticism for bringing forth today’s debate.

My party and I profoundly disagree with the petition. That will come as no surprise to anyone here—to some extent, it echoes many of the comments already made. May I start by emphasising the huge contribution made by so many people who have come to this country over many years? Without that, the UK would not be the country, or set of countries, that it is. Our economy and our society benefit from the talent and investment of people who come here, including students who come here to study. That cannot and should not be measured solely in financial terms; we must look much more broadly than that.

An example given by the British Medical Association reflects some of the comments made by hon. Members in the debate. In anticipation of the debate, it said:

“Much of the rhetoric about immigration has focused on the pressures that increased immigration has placed on public services including the health service, housing and schools.”

It believes that it is important to acknowledge the contribution made by

“highly skilled migrants, including doctors…in delivering and sustaining public services including the NHS and our universities.”

It draws on the example of international medical graduates—doctors—who have become essential members of the UK’s medical workforce. The NHS is dependent on them to provide a high quality, reliable and safe service to patients. It says that international medical graduates

“have enhanced the UK health system over the years, improving the diversity of the profession to reflect a changing population, and filling shortages in specialties which may otherwise remain empty.”

That is just one example of the contribution made by those who have come to this country over the years.

A number of hon. Members touched on the question of refugees. I appreciate that that is not the core subject matter of the debate, but may I say a few words on that? We need to celebrate our proud tradition of providing refuge to those fleeing persecution in other countries. In the light of the current crisis, we need to work with the UN to support vulnerable refugees, and those from Syria in particular. More needs to be done and we need to tackle all of the issues upstream.

I remind hon. Members that serious proposals were put forward last week by a highly experienced group of judges, ex-judges, lawyers and other experts in the field of refugee law and practice. Their proposals are worthy of serious consideration and we must find time to consider them.

First, the UK should take a fair and proportionate share of refugees from both within and outside the EU. We need to have that debate—we had some of it last week. Secondly, safe and legal routes to asylum need to be established. That goes to the heart of the discussion about whether refugees should be taken from within Europe having already arrived, or beforehand, but the key issue is safe and legal routes. Thirdly, there must be access to fair and thorough procedures to determine eligibility for protection. Those serious proposals have been put on the table by eminent experts in the field who think there should be debate, and I urge that we find time for that.

Although I have profound concerns about and disagree with the motion, I accept that we should debate immigration and the issues that lie behind the petition. That does not mean that those who drafted or supported it are right or that they speak with one voice, but we should not shy away from the questions raised for us to debate. It is therefore good that we have had this debate today.

In many ways the question is about how to get the balance right. We need an immigration system with controls that are properly administered and effective, but, equally importantly, we also need fairness and humanity. We need strong borders. Labour has argued for more staffing on the borders and better training for those staff. We also need fair rules to protect those who are exploited and migrant workers in particular.

[Paul Scully]

This is an opportune time to raise something that perhaps the Minister can discuss or take away. The Government brought in exit checks in about April, but we need more of a physical presence to police those checks. That may require investment.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. Labour’s position is that it is more appropriate to have more staff on the borders carrying out proper checks than to impose a burden on landlords to carry out checks later on, as proposed by the Immigration Bill, which will be in Committee from tomorrow morning.

On preventing exploitation of migrant workers, my party and I welcome the establishment of a director of labour market enforcement. There has been a very low number of civil penalties and criminal prosecutions over the years, so hopefully the establishment of that post will change the position considerably.

In terms of fairness and humanity, there are issues worthy of serious consideration: first, ending the indefinite detention of people in the asylum and immigration system; and secondly, ending the detention of pregnant women and victims of sexual abuse or trafficking. There is also the question of removal of support from those whose asylum claims have failed. That policy was piloted 10 years ago and ended in failure.

Finally, when looking at a balanced approach, there are the counterproductive issues. It is counterproductive to put such constraints on students coming to the country that many of our leading institutions fear that they will drop in the world rankings year on year as they fail to attract the students they need or fail to retain them thereafter. That needs to be looked at seriously. I will put in that same bracket the proposals in the Immigration Bill on employee offences. I have no difficulty at all with the provisions that come down harder on employers, but the problem with coming down on employees is that unless individuals have the confidence to come forward, the counter-effect will be that it will not be possible to bring the cases the Bill intends to allow.

In conclusion, we should celebrate the contribution of all those who have come to this country. We need to balance the strong and effective with the fair and humane, but I welcome the fact that we have had this discussion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I apologise for that misunderstanding. I was about to say that I met representatives of the Scottish Government straightaway to discuss Scotland’s share of the 20,000. However, I am afraid that I genuinely do not know the answer to the question he has just asked either—that has got me off the hook.

There is a lot of co-operation between the British and French Governments on the situation in Calais, which has received a lot of publicity. That situation is important, but I should make it clear that it has nothing to do with the refugees we are talking about or with our humanitarian policy of taking refugees from places adjacent to Syria.

There has been some criticism of our approach, and I would like to go on to the point the shadow Minister made about the letter from the lawyers and others published, I think, in The Guardian last week. I do not agree with what they say, because they give no credit to the Government for what they have done to try to help to deal with the refugee crisis. They talk purely about the number of people we are going to take into the country and say that it is inadequate. However, Government policy is clear: we are dealing with everything as part of an holistic, humanitarian issue. We are spending large amounts—about £1.1 billion—on helping refugees in the countries adjacent to Syria. I have been to Jordan, and I have seen the effects of what we are doing. We should be very proud of the money we are spending and of the British people, non-governmental organisations and other organisations that are working there—I could talk about the millions of food parcels and everything else. When I was there, I was told that, possibly apart from the Americans, we are the largest country doing these things. Our policy of bringing vulnerable refugees to this country is part of that, but those who signed the letter in The Guardian gave us no credit for it.

[Keir Starmer]

Is not the significance of that statement that those ex-judges have considerable experience, including at international level? The lawyers who signed it included QCs who were briefed on behalf of the Government. These individuals have not come from particularly campaigning backgrounds; they are lawyers and others who are experienced in the field, and who profoundly disagree with the Government’s approach. Does the Minister not agree that, whatever approach they take, the proposals they put on the table warrant serious consideration?

[Richard Harrington]

The shadow Minister himself is a lawyer of considerable reputation and expertise, and it would be impossible for me to criticise the legal profession in his presence. All I can say is that I disagree with those who signed the letter. When asked to give a number, the person who was interviewed on the “Today” programme could not. There is not more justification for the number of people they mentioned than there is for Prime Minister’s number of 20,000. He mentioned that number because he feels that that is the number of vulnerable people we can sustain. Those who signed the letter could have mentioned two times, three times or four times the number they did. All decent people want to help, but the Government have to balance different factors.

I am proud of the fact that the Government have promised to take 20,000 people. People have their own views as to whether it should be more. Many people believe it should be fewer, but I am certain that my responsibility is to ensure that the 20,000 people whom the Government have agreed to take are properly selected and brought here with dignity, and given the attention they need. I accept that there are other arguments about the issue, and it cannot be ring-fenced as a refugee issue; the matter is part of the general immigration issue that we have been discussing.

I am proud of this country’s tradition with refugees and that we are playing our part, particularly having seen what we are doing in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey to make people’s lives as decent as they can be in the circumstances. The Government should be proud, and by and large there is political consensus on most of the issue, although I accept there may be differences over numbers. I have been keen and quick to commend Labour councils as well as non-Labour councils that have put themselves forward. I do not think that people are playing politics over the matter at all, which is how it should be.

I agreed with most of the long speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, but I want to make it clear that the Mr David Harrington he mentioned is no relation to me. If he were, and there was a way for me to expel him from my family, I certainly would, with views like those. To make a serious point, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s view that a legitimate anti-immigration view is not necessarily a racist view at all, notwithstanding the language used in such a petition as we have been considering. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House discuss immigration on the Floor of the House, and it is cheap to say that a contrary view is racist. That is not so at all, and if anything it does a disservice to the merits of the argument.

I cannot really comment on the idea that the hon. Gentleman raised of bringing people here to do apprenticeships, because that would come under the general apprenticeship programme, but I certainly hope that many of the Syrians who come here will be suited—subject to getting their English language skills up quickly, as we hope will happen—to apprenticeships. I mean that not so that the Government can hit their target, but because it will enhance their lives—what has happened to those people is so tragic.

I agree with the definition of managed immigration offered by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay—I thought that was very good—and with his plea for us to treat refugees with compassion. From what I saw in Bradford of the smaller number of people who have come in up to now under the vulnerable persons scheme, they are treated with compassion, including the provision of housing for them. They are given a Syrian meal, cooked by local Syrians, when they arrive, and a lot of individual mentoring. Speaking to them reveals the tragedies of their lives. One person told me that two or three years ago they were practising as a dentist in Aleppo. One had been a professor of ancient languages at a university. We cannot imagine: it happened like that—I do not know whether my clicking my finger can go into Hansard. I apologise for that. What happened was so instantaneous that their lives were transformed, tragically.

I have taken rather a lot of the House’s time, but I think this is exactly the sort of debate we should have. Members across the House have no truck with the words of the petition, and I look forward to many future debates, when I hope to be able to report positively on the resettling of Syrian refugees.