Brexit, Science and Innovation

Debate between Norman Lamb and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

Was I right in hearing that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, an amazing place, which I visited in my role as Chair? It undertakes incredible work in a previously deprived part of Liverpool and demonstrates that investment in science in some of the poorer regions of our country is vital. He makes an important point and, like the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, he pre-empts what I will say on this subject.

As a result of issues such as the one the hon. Gentleman raises, we decided specifically to explore the issue of immigration rules and what will be needed to ensure that the UK can maintain its pre-eminent position. Again, I do not think that this should be in any way controversial, for either Brexiteers or remainers; those who favoured Brexit were simply arguing that they wanted control of immigration rules, not that we should exclude the brightest and best people from our country. So for our report “An immigration system that works for science and innovation”, the second cited in today’s motion, the Committee asked the science community to work quickly to set out what it wanted to see in an immigration system. We are particularly grateful to the Wellcome Trust for hosting a workshop so that we could develop some concrete proposals. I hope that they will be of use to the Government as they seek to navigate their way through to their future position for this country.

Our proposals were designed to tackle the rapidly approaching problem of what to do about European economic area immigration when the transition period ends. We were warned that the worst thing to do after Brexit would be to roll EEA countries into our existing rest-of-the- world system, as that was seen as too restrictive and so would not facilitate the free flow of people to carry out research in our country. But in the future, if our proposals relating to EEA countries are accepted, we saw that there would be advantages to rolling out our proposals beyond the EEA, so that there is a single immigration system that works for science and innovation, and that attracts great people from wherever they are around the world to come to work in this country.

Our proposals for a new immigration system that works for science and innovation are based on several principles. We must bear in mind that this is important not just for academia, but for industry, and it is therefore crucial for our economy, too. Let me set out those principles. The first is that we need to be able to attract individuals who have different types and levels of skill, and who are at different career stages, as well as their dependants. That means going beyond the “brightest and the best” whom the Government refer to so that we can attract and retain people such as the technicians, who are so crucial to undertaking research; they may be part of a team we are seeking to recruit from overseas. Secondly, we need to be able to attract and recruit highly skilled people, wherever they are from, without being subject to an annual limit.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this important report before the House. Does he agree that we are already seeing challenges—I have certainly seen them in my constituency—relating to technical staff and the thresholds in the immigration system as it stands, which are putting people off coming to the UK to work or have already caused them to leave? The UK Government will have to be very bold and imaginative and to embrace fully these proposals if we are to retain and attract staff in the future.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I agree with what she says. It should be in everyone’s interests that we facilitate bringing bright and great people to our country, whatever level they are at, because that benefits our economy, employment, our ability to fund our public services and so on. Those who come here need to be able to travel outside the UK for research purposes without it harming that individual’s ability to apply for indefinite leave to remain. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) was very persistent in pursuing that point during our inquiry. If spending time abroad on field trips and collaborating with others is part of someone’s research, they should not be penalised if they decide they want to make this country their home for the longer term.

The system also has to be efficient, and streamlined, with a low-cost application process for employees and employers. We currently have some of the highest visa fees in the world, which can be off-putting and burdensome. The cost of a tier 2 visa for a researcher, their spouse and three children will rise this month to £21,000, a fee that is way beyond what many people involved in research can pay. We argued in our report that the Home Office should not just use salary as a proxy for skill —that point was made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is a sad truth that some high-skilled jobs in research are relatively poorly paid, and the system needs to recognise that. This country should not do itself harm by denying those people the ability to come here and thereby benefit our economy.

The specifics of our proposals fell into two parts: for short-term migration to the UK, we proposed that the Government establish visa-free and permit-free work in the UK for up to 180 days for skilled workers. Eligibility should be verified at the border with proof of intent to leave within that period, and a letter from the employer describing the nature of the skilled work. For long-term migration, we outlined a five-year skilled work permit for those with either an offer of employment—with a minimum salary that reflects the going rate for the job, as well as regional and public or private sector differences in salary—or third-party sponsorship, such as from a university.

There are precedents for these approaches, both at home and abroad. For short-term migration, we currently allow visitors from Canada and the USA to visit the UK to do academic research, attend conferences and undertake training for up to six months without a visa. In the US, the ESTA—electronic system for travel authorisation—visa-waiver programme allows entry for business or tourism for up to 90 days. For longer-term migration, the French have a “talent passport” model, which includes a scientist category under which researchers who have a hosting agreement and the equivalent of a master’s degree or above can apply for a visa for up to four years, with family members also able to apply for residence permits and to work.

A report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust analysed the visa systems of 22 countries and found that half of them have a dedicated immigration route or provision for researchers. Other countries do it to support science and research; we can do it as well. There is no reason why we cannot. We suggest that the Government would need to undertake further work with the science and technology community to co-create a system at the detailed level, but our proposals show the way forward. The Committee and the community have worked hard to be constructive and proactive on this issue, and those are the qualities that I expect to see in the Government response, when it arrives.

During our inquiry, we also uncovered opportunities for the Government to make changes now, unilaterally, to improve the current non-EEA immigration system while negotiations with the EU are ongoing. We saw a need to revise and clarify the criteria for tier 1 exceptional talent visas, which currently have low take-up. Some 2,000 visas are available each year, but there are currently only around 400 applications, which is way short of the potential capacity. Many believe that that part of the system is not working because the exceptional-talent criteria are too restrictive.

We called on the Government to reinstate the tier 1 post-study work visas, so that talented international graduates who have chosen to study at a UK higher education institution are able to contribute further to the UK economy by working here for up to two years. Our call has been supported this week by Universities UK, and a ComRes poll found that 72% of people think that international students should be able to stay to work for a year or more after graduation, with 52% in support of their being able to stay for two years or more.

Finally, we recommended that the Government remove the cap on tier 2 general visas. They have removed the cap for doctors and nurses, which frees up space for engineers and other professionals, but why should there be an arbitrary limit on skilled workers more generally? Surely it makes sense to encourage them to come to this country.

The Government’s response to our second report is due later this month, but I hope we will get a flavour of what to expect from the Minister’s response today. I hope that he will recognise the urgency of the need to arrange new immigration rules. The planned transition period gives us some time to develop an immigration system, but universities have said that they need two years’ notice of changes to immigration processes so that the prospective staff and students can prepare properly. I hope the Minister will be able to give us an update on agreeing an accord on science and innovation, which has been discussed for many months now.

Many other related issues are not covered in detail in the two reports, but I suspect that Members will wish to raise them in the debate. Examples include the Government’s decision to ask pharmaceutical companies to stockpile medicines as preparation for no deal; the future regulation of medicines when the European Medicines Agency moves from London to Amsterdam; and concerns about Euratom in respect of nuclear research and the availability of medical radioisotopes, which are essential tools for diagnostic tests and the treatment of cancer and other diseases.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry to have tried your patience—I hope that, as a result of both reports and today’s debate, the Government will work to secure the accord on science and innovation as quickly as possible, and include information on how they expect the people element to work for highly skilled workers. It is crucial that we do all we can to maintain the UK’s pre-eminent position as a science and innovation superpower. It is in everyone’s interest. Moreover, provisions need to be made to protect science in the event of a no-deal scenario. I would like to hear what action the Minister has taken on that, as well.

World Autism Awareness Week

Debate between Norman Lamb and Hannah Bardell

Thursday 28th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

That brings me nicely on to my next point, because I was going to say that this is not one Government’s responsibility; we all have to learn and understand more. The article in The Economist made clear the strong economic case that if we invest in diagnosis and early intervention, we will save a fortune in lifetime care. As we learn, the Government have to respond. That is the challenge. This Government, because they are here now and because new learning can lead to improvements, have a responsibility to respond.

[Hannah Bardell]

The Library briefing paper states that

“the Government does not collect data specifically on employment rates for people with Autistic Spectrum Conditions”.

We should campaign, cross-party, to change that and work with business to get interviews that are friendly to those on the autistic spectrum.

[Norman Lamb]

I totally agree with that. As a former Minister, I recognised during my time in the Department of Health that, whether it be mental health, autism or learning disabilities, we operate in a fog. There is an absence of data that have been analysed and understood. If we are to make the improvements of which we are capable, we have to understand the evidence, which involves the collection of data.

I want to highlight the failures of society and the extent to which we treat people with autism as second-class citizens by referring to two cases. The case of Connor Sparrowhawk, who tragically lost his life through drowning in July 2013, has been much documented recently, and his mother, Sara Ryan, has been an amazing campaigner, fighting for justice. The Oxford Mail reported this morning about a recently leaked report, produced for the NHS trust some 11 months before Connor lost his life, that demonstrated failures of care in his unit. The article states:

“The report found Slade House was particularly poor, flagging up issues with a ‘lack of clarity of care plans’, ‘no clear understanding of a ‘locked door policy’

and so on. What is the point of commissioning reports at enormous expense if their conclusions and recommendations are ignored?

There has been great focus this week on the importance of the accountability of public bodies following the shocking conclusion of the inquest into the Hillsborough tragedy, but that importance stretches across all public bodies and into healthcare. It is important that organisations recognise their responsibility to involve the families of those who lose their lives in investigations and to have an open and learning culture, rather than a closed culture that excludes families. The trust’s treatment of Sara Ryan in the investigation of Connor’s death has been truly shocking. There must be accountability and a willingness to learn from mistakes and to take account of any recommendations.

As we try to get people out of assessment and treatment units, where they are often left for too long, the Health & Social Care Information Centre has found that 15% of the transforming care cohort, of which the Minister will be aware, have autism and no learning disability and that 23% have autism and a learning disability. When looking at the transforming care partnership plans and the outcomes for individuals, it is important that the Department ensures that the specific needs of autistic people are included and addressed.

Finally, I want to refer to the case of an extraordinary constituent of mine. A nine-year-old boy wrote a letter for his parents to take to a meeting that I had on his behalf with the authorities at Norfolk County Council, and he ended up being interviewed—at the age of nine—on the “Today” programme, and it was a remarkable interview. He movingly wrote in his letter:

“I normally say to myself you have to keep on going. I normally also say ‘is it worth it’. I could just kill myself. I wouldn’t have to face today.”

That comes from a nine-year-old boy. His family has been left waiting some two years for a diagnosis without any real support. They have been told that he does not meet the threshold for care from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Other hon. Members have highlighted similar cases, with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) talking movingly about her experience, for example. The family, by borrowing from relatives, have managed to pay for some support for their little boy, but what about all those families who cannot afford it? It is intolerable. We cannot justify a society in which children get help if they have articulate parents or parents with money, but where those without go without.

As we seek to implement maximum waiting time standards in mental health, something which I have made my mission, my plea to the Minister is that we include autism and follow the NICE guidelines that the first diagnostic assessment should start no later than three months after GP referral—not 36 months, as I am told is sometimes the case in Norfolk, or 24 months, as in many other parts of the country. The result will be that society and the Government will save money in the long run if we make the investment in diagnosis and treatment at an early stage.