Developing Countries: Jobs and Livelihoods

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. One reason why I called for this debate is because not nearly enough work is going on around the world. The UK is taking a lead, but he is absolutely right that much more needs to be done here and around the world.

In many countries, much of the work is subsistence agriculture and low-income self-employment—that is true for something like 50% of the 3 billion people working worldwide. Making ends meet is extremely difficult. I have to admit that all the figures I have cited are imprecise and sometimes speculative, which is a problem. We do not have accurate data, but I hope we will see more in future. It is about not only data but action, but action depends on good data.

The World Development Report found that: first, there are too few productive waged jobs in modern, formal sectors; secondly, most people are engaged in very low-productivity, seasonal or subsistence work in both rural and urban areas; thirdly, there are large gaps in job opportunities for women, youth and marginalised groups; fourthly, much work is in poor conditions, or is unsafe or risky, including in formal employment; and fifthly, many labour market-related institutions are ineffective, including skills institutions.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I apologise that I cannot stay for the whole debate, but I am going to an event in the House of Lords to mark Small Charity Week and speak about the importance of small charities in international development. Does he agree that many small and grassroots organisations have an important role to play in equipping people in developing countries with precisely the kinds of skills he is talking about, which they need in order to move into productive employment?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I will give an example of that later in my speech, but he is absolutely right. I made a similar point in Monday’s debate in this Chamber on foreign aid expenditure.

What can be done? I shall give several possible solutions. First, let us work with what we have. I shall start with agriculture, because it is at the heart of the economies of most developing countries. It provides most of the work and a considerable share of GDP, Government income and exports. It also provides the basis for local manufacturing. Even in developed economies such as ours, food and drink production is the largest manufacturing sector. Why should that not be the case in developing countries?

Although all countries will of course wish to diversify into other sectors and reduce reliance on agriculture, that is not the same as neglecting agriculture. That mistake has been made far too often in the past, both by Governments and by their aid-funded advisers. I am glad to say that things have changed over the past three decades. Countries such as India and Vietnam, and more recently Ghana, Tanzania and Ethiopia—to name but a few of many—have given much more prominence to agriculture and increased their support of it. The same is true of development agencies, especially the Department for International Development. I welcome that.

Working with what we have in agriculture also means working with the smallholder farmers who are its backbone. When I started to work with smallholder farmers nearly 30 years ago, the view of many was that they were on the way out, and that the future of agriculture was large-scale farming. In fact, they are more important than ever, providing food security even in conflict zones. For example, in the 1970s Angola produced a similar amount of coffee to Uganda, but Angola’s coffee was almost all produced on large estates, while Uganda’s was produced by smallholders. Both countries went through long periods of turbulence. Today, Uganda’s coffee production is the same as it was back then, if not more, but Angola’s coffee production has almost disappeared. Smallholder farmers are incredibly resilient.

Foreign Aid Expenditure

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

The point I am making is a wide one. It is right to look carefully into any allegations of such a serious nature—and several have been raised today. I listened to what the Minister said about specific cases, but that is not the point I am making. I am speaking generally, with reference to the impression created by The Mail on Sunday petition. The fact is that the countries that our aid supports have been regularly reviewed. The coalition Government made different choices about which countries to support from the Labour Government that I was part of; but that was right—we should review those things. We have stopped giving aid to India, and places such as China—it was a difficult decision but I think it was the right one—yet a myth is perpetuated that we are still giving them money.

As has been said, there is increased independent oversight from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which, incidentally, reports to the International Development Committee, not the Government. That means there can be independent scrutiny of what our aid is being spent on . Things have also moved on in the sense that cross-Government co-operation has increased. I welcome the steps that have been taken to increase co-operation between defence, diplomatic and development activities, through the National Security Council. It is the right decision, and it ensures that we are co-ordinated across our international sphere. It is not a zero-sum game. I firmly support the 2% spending target for defence, but I also support the 0.7% aid target. I am in favour of supporting charities and those tackling poverty in my constituency, such as food banks, but I also support providing life-saving drugs to people dying from Ebola or HIV across the world. That is not a zero-sum game—we can do both. Indeed, if I want to ask why people in my constituency are living in poverty, I will have far more questions for the Government about some of their other policies than about what the international aid budget is being spent on.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the Government’s increasing tendency to double-count spending both to the 2% NATO target and the 0.7% GNI target?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think there is a danger of things sometimes being blurred, but there are activities that can legitimately be described as measures contributing to security and to development. It is not a zero-sum game. I saw that in Afghanistan. I saw the close working between our development staff, armed forces and Foreign Office staff—there is overlap, but we need to be cautious about completely skewing things in one or the other. As to proportions, the fact is that in 2014-15 defence spending was 75% of our total international spending. Aid, diplomacy and intelligence made up just 25%. That is a perfectly reasonable balance, and the co-operation that is going on is absolutely right.

The growing chaos in Yemen, parts of the horn of Africa, and north and central Africa, shows exactly the consequences of ignoring gross poverty and instability. Our aid is a tiny investment—less than a penny in the pound. It helps us to tackle threats. It is morally right and it shows us to be a compassionate and progressive global power. In my view it is madness to slash the budget that is focused on tackling those threats to our national and global security that drive people to flee their countries and drown, and that, most importantly, degrade us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I pay tribute to you and to the previous occupant of the Chair for having been able to call so many Members—admittedly, though, not everyone who wanted to get in has been called. I am aware that a number of Members came along to show solidarity with the debate without any intention of speaking or expectation of being able to do so, but that emphasises the point rightly made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) that this is the kind of issue that thoroughly deserves a full day’s debate on the Floor of the House. I am happy to back that call.

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before the election, I worked for the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and was the vice-chair of the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland.

One message that comes through loud and clear from the debate is that aid works. No one is disputing that aid from the United Kingdom Government, and indeed from the Scottish Government, has saved and changed millions of lives around the world over the years. There is a consensus about that and there does not, fortunately, seem to be any suggestion that aid should stop altogether. The substance of the debate seems to have been the effectiveness of aid and the appropriate amounts of spending and, to a certain extent, questions of public support for aid. I think that there is public support.

The debate was triggered by a petition—these Monday debates are becoming something of a highlight of the parliamentary week, which is to be welcomed—but there is a difference between a petition that people voluntarily sign and broader indications of public support. Repeated opinion polls show that a majority of people in the United Kingdom, and indeed across OECD countries, support the principle of aid. The point about public understanding was made relatively early in the debate. Interestingly, in 2011 a Chatham House-YouGov survey showed that the average estimate of UK aid spending was £79 billion, when in that year the actual spend was £8.5 billion. Polling across OECD countries consistently shows that people believe their Governments spend between 10% and 20% of their gross national income on aid and think it should be between 1% and 5%. In fact, the public think that more should be spent than is.

In my own constituency, the sum total of 95 people signed the petition, and only 5% of the signatories came from Scotland, which is far less than Scotland’s proportionate share. Mention was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) of how our hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) had primary schoolchildren who signed up to the Send my Friend to School campaign, and I have met primary schoolchildren from the Glasgow Academy who want to send the message to the Prime Minister loud and clear that children’s education must be an important aspect of our international development spend.

Three key points have been touched on in the debate, the first of which is the principle of aid itself and the importance of the target. The second is the impact aid makes and why it is in our enlightened self-interest to spend money on it, and the third is how we go beyond aid and the role of the sustainable development goals. I will try to touch on all three points and still leave plenty of time for other Front-Bench colleagues.

As I have said, there is a consensus that there is a need for aid. I join other Members in giving credit to Labour for the creation of the Department for International Development as a stand-alone Department, and to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, first for maintaining DFID and secondly for passing the legislation that was in all the party manifestos. I hope that the commitment remains in those manifestos, for which people voted and which they, and Members in this Chamber, have endorsed.

The need for aid is clear, as we have heard in the many statistics, stories and anecdotes we have heard. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, 124 million children are out of school—63 million of them girls—and some 650 million people are living without clean water. That is why continuing to provide aid is incredibly important, and it is something to which the Scottish National party has given its long-standing support. Indeed, the White Paper on independence for Scotland suggested that an independent Scotland would want to go beyond the 0.7% target to about 1%.

If the principle is established that there should be aid, the question is how much and why. The 0.7% target was agreed 40 years ago. It is not just a target for the United Kingdom, as many Members have recognised; it is the target for developed countries around the world. It was calculated that it represented the amount of money that would need to be generated to end poverty and bring people up to an equitable standard of living comparative to that which we enjoy. If the UK had been meeting the 0.7% target ever since it was agreed in 1970, an additional £87.5 billion would have been made available for aid spending and perhaps some of that would have lessened the need for aid today.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that, if all the rich countries of the world had met that commitment when they made it, we might be dealing with very different problems now?

[Patrick Grady]

That is exactly my point. I did not necessarily mean what I said to be a criticism; I am trying to offer a bit of context about why the target is so important.

As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, it is a proportionate target, so it will go up, or indeed down, depending on the strength of the economy. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made an important point about how the target, and that predictability, allows people to plan and provide the step change—the gear shift—that is needed to really make an impact. Speaking of the need for and the importance of impact, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) was absolutely right to address the hunger crisis in southern Africa. Predictable aid flows allow agencies to put measures in place that mean that when disasters strike, the resources are there to be mobilised immediately, rather than our sitting back, as the petition seems to suggest, and waiting for something to happen before scrabbling around and figuring out how much aid we can spend.

Aid does work. We have heard the statistics. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said that every two minutes immunisation sponsored by a United Kingdom aid programme saves a child’s life. At the same time, no one is disputing that everything is not perfect, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East made the valid point that not everything is perfect in the NUS, or rather the NHS. Not everything is perfect in the National Union of Students either—[Laughter.] I do not see many petitions calling for the national health service to be shut down, although there probably are elements of the right-wing press that would support doing that.

It is right that questions have been raised about the use of funding in Palestine, and it is also right that the Minister has had the opportunity to respond. That is why we have structures of scrutiny in this Parliament. DFID is one of the most highly scrutinised Departments of Government but it is important to recognise the work that is done. Of course, DFID funds organisations by funding specific projects. It does not fund global headquarters for organisations. If an organisation wants to build a global headquarters, it has to get the funding from somewhere else and justify the spend to those funding sources. DFID gives money for specific projects that are fully accountable back here, and that is why we have this kind of debate.

A point that has so explicitly been made by many today is that this is not just a moral argument. Aid is in our enlightened self-interest. Some members clearly want to prevent migrant flows, displacement and the spread of tropical diseases, and investment through our international development funding is absolutely crucial to that. However, as has also been said, not least by the chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), aid is only one part of the development process. We have to look at how we go beyond aid, and ultimately get to the stage at which it is not as necessary because countries are able to stand on their own two feet. There is a need for fair trade arrangements, support for civil society and good governance, the development of national infrastructure, fairer tax treaties—mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) —and fair and effective implementation of the sustainable development goals. A coherent policy approach across the whole of Government is something that the Scottish Government are keen to take forward, and I hope that the UK Government will do so too.

It would be useful to hear from the Minister when DFID expects to publish its bilateral and multilateral aid reviews. It would be interesting to hear any further reflection he can offer on double-counting towards the NATO and Overseas Development Institute targets, and to know how DFID plans to drive forward the sustainable development goals across Government.

I am a big fan of my tartan ties, and the one I am wearing is the Zambia-Scotland tie. As with many tartans, it is an expression of solidarity, and solidarity ought to be, as I said in my maiden speech, the basis of human relationships.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Sir Desmond Swayne)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She is very well informed, and she speaks on the subject with passion. If I may, I would like to take the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) as my own; it was excellent.

A number of my constituents have been driven into a state of apoplexy by stories of how their hard-earned tax money is shovelled out the door without scrutiny of any kind, particularly towards the year end. I am glad that I have been able to refer them to the dfid.gov.uk website, where they can find a point-by-point rebuttal of all the accusations.

I respect the petitioners, however, and I thank them for the opportunity that they have afforded us to debate this important issue. I am glad that a number of Members have used the opportunity to evangelise about international development aid, and I want the debate to go well beyond this Chamber. My ambition is to ensure that by the end of the Parliament, more people write to thank us for what we as a kingdom are doing on international aid than to complain about the level of it.

I have a duty to represent all my constituents—not only those who have written to me complaining about the level of international aid, but those who have been tweeting all day about how proud they are of our international aid. Equally, I must represent the views of the 99.99% of my constituents who have expressed no opinion whatever. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) reminded us that we have a leadership role as Members of Parliament; our job is to bring our constituents information, to persuade them and, dare I say it, to bring enlightenment.

The UK aid strategy sits firmly in our security and defence strategy. The 0.7% spent on international aid and the 2% commitment to NATO are the 2.7% that we spend, in our international interests, on securing a safer, more stable and more prosperous world.

[Patrick Grady]

rose—

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I know what the hon. Gentleman will say, because we have had the argument before. We may secure our national interest through the ability to deploy lethal force, but I put it to the House that often, the deployment of soft power is a much more effective tool of policy. There is no doubt among any of us that it was in our national interest to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on securing an end to the Ebola epidemic. Without doubt, had it been allowed to spread, it would have come to us and caused terror and economic dislocation. Equally, our main effort has to be on economic development in the poorer parts of the world.

The reality is that in the end, everything is about jobs. In the next 10 years, the world needs 600 million new jobs if we are to avoid an army of underemployed young people who are frustrated and increasingly angry. We have to make investments. I am alive to the concerned expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about development capital. We have to tackle the causes of poverty and injustice, because if we do not deal with those problems at source, we know where they are going: to our doorsteps and our shores. Aid is undoubtedly in our national interest.

Overseas aid is also undoubtedly controversial; it has to be. If I am spending British taxpayers’ money on helping the people of Bangladesh who live on the chars to deal with climate change and flooding, it is clearly not available to deal with flood defences in Durham, York or elsewhere. However, I put it this way: we have pledged to spend 0.7% of our national income on international development, which means that we have 99.3% to spend on ourselves. I do not know anyone who spends 99.3% of their income on themselves; I am not sure I want to know such a person, and I am not so sure that they would have any friends. That is equally true of a nation. What influence would we have in the world, and how could we carry our heads high, if that were the case, and we were to abandon this important pledge? It is important to focus what we spend, rigorously demanding value for money, and ensuring that we have the systems to secure that and to drive down costs, so that we get proper value.

I am sorry to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) is not in his place, because he referred to a low bar. I invite him to see me in DFID to explain to me and my officials what this low bar is, because I am the “low bar”. I am the one who has to be persuaded that the projects are value for money, so I shall be very interested to hear his explanation.

The reality is that over the past five years, we have delivered education for 11 million schoolchildren; 69 million people have received financial assistance and services to trade their way out of poverty; 29 million people have benefited from our nutrition programmes; 5 million people, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said, have benefited from having healthcare professionals attend at birth; 63 million people have had access to clean water; 15 million people have been able to cope with climate change; 44 million children have been immunised; and we have delivered emergency care to 13 million people in the wake of 33 disasters. That is a measure of the importance of what we are doing.

The bit of the development picture that people get is humanitarian relief. They put their hand in their pocket to the tune of over £100 million after the Nepal earthquake. What we need to get over to them is that the people who appear suddenly to provide that relief and do the search and rescue have to have their core funds covered throughout the year when there is not an earthquake. The success of our intervention in the Nepal earthquake was built on years of investment in resilience beforehand; there was a blood bank in place and a logistics centre for the distribution of emergency aid, which saved seven weeks cumulatively. People rehearsed and rehearsed how to deal with the aftermath. This is what we spend the money on. I believe passionately that we have to get the democratic legitimacy from our people by persuading them. The moment we explain this to them, they get it. We need to hold their attention and get the opportunity to do that, and this debate gives us that opportunity, so let us build on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State recognise the important role that faith communities and civil society organisations play in holding Governments to account in developing countries? Will she assure the House that the Department for International Development remains committed to supporting civil society, capacity-building programmes and good governance programmes to help promote stability and tackle corruption?

[Justine Greening]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Our work with civil society is not only important for the impact that it can have in driving accountability on the ground, as he mentions, but is one way in which we can tackle corruption. It is also vital in changing attitudes towards women and girls, a matter that I care about and that we must make progress on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly have a very close look at the issue that my hon. Friend raises. I know the A18 and its importance for his constituency, and I will look at what the Highways Agency has made available and at whether there is real evidence that more could be done to make the road safe.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Q9. Eritrea was described as the North Korea of Africa at the recent inaugural all-party group meeting, which heard reports of Government-enforced indefinite conscription. The UK FCO advises against travel to areas within 25 km of the Ethiopian border. Will the Prime Minister personally and urgently review Home Office guidance that says that it is safe to transport asylum seekers back to Eritrea?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says. We know that Eritrea is a deeply undemocratic and autocratic country that has done appalling things to its people and that is one reason why so many of those seeking to cross the Mediterranean, normally through the Libyan route, have come from that country. When I had the opportunity to meet the Eritrean leadership, as I did at the conference in Valletta in Malta, I made those points very strongly.

Violence against Women and Girls (Sustainable Development Goals)

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on securing this debate? This is an important issue for all of us, as evidenced by the fantastic turnout. Indeed, a number of my constituents have taken the time to write to me personally to make their feelings on this matter clear. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Scottish National party.

As we have heard, one in three women and girls across the world will be victims of physical and sexual violence at some point their lives. Such atrocities know no borders; they are committed within our communities, throughout our country and across continents each and every day. It is right therefore that the international community comes together and works in a common endeavour to eradicate violence and discrimination in all its forms and to secure equality for women and girls in every corner of the globe. The UN sustainable development goals are an opportunity for countries the world over to come together and change the course of the 21st century.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I apologise for my late arrival and early departure. Will my hon. Friend welcome the commitment made by the Scottish Government, and particularly the First Minister, to women’s equality and early adoption of the sustainable development goals and the leadership that that shows?

[Gavin Newlands]

I do, wholeheartedly. I was going to mention that, but I have cut my speech down due to time, so I welcome that intervention.

We have an opportunity to tackle the entrenched problems that afflict our world, such as poverty, inequality and gender-based violence, and we must seize that opportunity with both hands. In addition to the one in three women who will be victims of physical and sexual violence, 150 million girls across the world will be sexually assaulted at or on their way to school each year. Each and every day, some 159 women die at the hands of a partner or family member in so-called honour killings—killed by the very people that we would expect to care for them the most. It is simply beyond comprehension.

To date, only two thirds of all countries have outlawed domestic violence and only 52 countries have explicitly criminalised rape within marriage. We live in a world where human trafficking, sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation and forced and child marriages still prevail. Throughout the world, 133 million women have been victim to the abhorrent practice of FGM and, sadly, millions of women and girls will be forced into marriages with men against their will.

There is absolutely no defence for these demeaning acts or disgraceful attitudes. The fact that violence against women is more prevalent in some other countries underlines the importance of the UK fulfilling its vital part on the world stage in this matter. At every opportunity, we must tell these countries, whether friend or foe, that violence against women and girls should never be committed and must never be condoned.

Needless to say, it is clear that the problem before us represents a significant challenge—but it is a problem that we cannot shy away from and a challenge that we must undertake to eliminate together, because behind the depressing statistics are many devastating stories, some of which we have heard today. Although the sustainable development goals cut across a diverse range of areas—from equality and education to the economy and the environment—we simply cannot succeed in a number of those areas without confronting the violence that is sadly perpetrated against women and girls throughout the world.

I am sure that Members from across the House will be pleased to hear that earlier this month, the Bulgarian Government decided that Bulgaria would be the latest state to sign the Istanbul convention. The Istanbul convention places an obligation on Governments to put appropriate measures in place to prevent violence against women in all its forms, protect victims and to prosecute perpetrators.

The UK Government signed the Istanbul convention in 2012; however, it has failed to ratify it to date. In January 2014, the Prime Minister stated that the treaty would be ratified in the “next few months”, yet here we are, almost two and a half years later, and the Government have yet to fulfil their promise. Ratifying the convention will send a strong message to the international community about the world that we seek to build and the improvements that we wish to make. The UK can—and should—lead by example on the issue of violence against women. We have been told for two years that the delay is due to an issue with extraterritoriality. In summing up, will the Minister tell us the latest on ratification and about any discussion between Home Office and Justice Ministers and their devolved counterparts?

As I stated, women and girls have an important role to play in all the sustainable development goals, because many of the 17 goals have female equality and empowerment at their heart. Therefore, ending gender-based violence and discrimination are preconditions for meeting many of the goals. Just as women have an important role to play in achieving the sustainable development goals, so too do men. White Ribbon is a global campaign that encourages men to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. The work of White Ribbon and other similar groups is invaluable and shows that men are able and willing to rise to the challenge of eradicating violence and discrimination against women and girls. That being said, Mr Owen, you, the mover of the motion and three Members summing up this debate are all men, so perhaps we are a tad over-represented today.

Finally, I commend the hon. Member for Foyle again on securing this debate and all the hon. Members who have attended it and spoken. Politics in Westminster is known to sometimes produce more heat than light. I believe, however, that a rare consensus has emerged today as we debate this important issue.

Beyond this Chamber, there is now growing consensus and support among international organisations, that to achieve the SDGs by 2030, investment in the work of women’s rights organisations is central to the implementation of this ambitious agenda. Such organisations are vital in attempting to tackle violence against women and girls. However, they are poorly resourced, receiving just under 1% of total UK aid for gender equality. The Scottish National party supports ActionAid in its calls for DFID to support and increase funding to grassroots women’s rights organisations working on the front line to promote gender equality and tackle violence. Will the Minister give a commitment to do that today?

We have a duty to never shirk nor shun an opportunity to end such violence and discrimination, and to secure equality and empower women and girls wherever they live throughout the world. Be in no doubt that, although that will not be simple or straightforward, the prize for it is a world that is less hungry and more healthy, more equal and more educated, safer and more secure, and more free and fair—indeed, the best of all possible worlds for women and girls to grow up and live in.

Sustainable Development Goals

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 13th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on securing this debate. This is first debate on various aspects of the SDGs since the goals were agreed but—I have used the shiny new Hansard search facility—about the fourth since the start of the Session. There was, not least, my own debate in Westminster Hall on 16 June last year. There was a debate on the educational aspects led by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) a few weeks later in July, and a very useful Back-Bench business debate on 10 September led by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). Just yesterday, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) led a debate on tackling HIV and AIDS in women and girls, in which a number of the issues that we have heard about today were touched on. I suspect that we will continue to revisit these issues throughout this Parliament and the lifetime of the SDGs. That is appropriate, because the effective implementation of the sustainable development goals will require considerable and ongoing scrutiny and monitoring from Parliaments around the world.

I should declare an interest: until the election last year, I was an employee of the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, the chair of the Network of International Development Organisations in Scotland and a member of the Scottish Government’s working group on the implementation of the sustainable development goals. I will perhaps touch on some of those things if time allows.

I want to look briefly at how the structure was arrived at and the opportunities that it presents, at the approaches that have been taken in Scotland—because there are lessons that DFID can learn—and, more generally, at the options for prioritisation and implementation of the goals by DFID. The process by which the goals were arrived at was incredibly inclusive and consultative. The SDGs are not simply the millennium development goals mark 2; they are a complete refresh. They represent a global consensus on the kind of world that we know is possible and that we have the resources, the knowledge and the technical ability to achieve. The most important thing that is needed is the political will to get there.

The universal, comprehensive nature of the goals is significant. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) talked about goal 3; the hon. Member for Bath and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) talked about gender equality; and the hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about goal 4, on education. In the context of this debate, perhaps the most important goal is No. 17, on strengthening the means of implementation and revitalising the global partnership for sustainable development, because it will encourage all the Governments of the world to work together to implement the goals in their own countries and internationally. As we have heard, no goal is met unless it is met everywhere and in full. That is the important universal nature of the goals.

The Scottish First Minister committed Scotland to the SDGs last July while they were still in draft format. She committed to the principle of achieving them at home and abroad and of using the Scottish Government’s powers to meet them in Scotland to eradicate poverty and achieve gender equality, which is very close to her heart. A great deal of work is going on at civil society and civil service level to see how the goals can be integrated into the national performance framework and the Scottish national action plan for human rights. Incredibly encouraging progress is being made. It would be interesting to hear how DFID plans to take forward a similar approach and, more broadly, the attempt at policy coherence for development.

This issue also came up yesterday in the HIV debate. A number of us were disappointed at the Command Paper published by DFID. The Government had showed commendable leadership in the development of the goals, in the negotiation process. Then last November they published a Command Paper that mentions the global goals only four times in its 28 pages. It would therefore be useful to hear from the Minister when a clear strategy for implementation of the SDGs will be published and whether that will happen before the high-level political forum in New York in July—the first key milestone—what the cross-Government role will be and whether they see a role for the Cabinet Office in co-ordinating across Government how domestic policy has an effect overseas, but also how the goals can be met at home, as well as how this will complement other commitments that have been signed up to, not least the Paris commitments on climate change.

Hon. Members have raised a number of operational points, in particular about data collection and disaggregation of data. There are questions about the funding cycles that DFID introduces, given that these are 15-year horizons and many projects perhaps receive only two or three-year funding. I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude simply by reiterating what I said earlier. We have the knowledge, the ability and the technical know-how to reach these goals. What is needed is the political will.

HIV: Women and Girls

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) on securing what has been a considered and useful debate on tackling HIV and AIDS in women and girls. I congratulate him too on his work as chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, of which I am a member. There were useful contributions from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who brings considerable experience to the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley)—I shall reflect in particular on some of what she said—and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of being a voice for the voiceless. I do not think there is any question of his voice not being heard. He spoke with his usual commitment and passion.

This debate is timely, as has been mentioned, taking place as it does in the context of the adoption of the sustainable development goals. Indeed, some of us will be back tomorrow for a debate on the implementation of those goals in the round. However, today’s debate is a useful opportunity to reflect on the particular issue of tackling HIV and AIDS, for all the reasons that we have heard, in particular the need to make rapid progress now that the goals are agreed. The number of people around the world living with HIV and AIDS continues to rise, despite the progress being made, and indeed partly as a result of it, given the enhanced longevity from treatment—an HIV infection need not be a death sentence per se. Nevertheless, transmission continues to increase and, as we have heard, in particular parts of the world that may affect women and girls disproportionately.

Three themes arise from what we have heard in the debate: general issues and challenges, such as those I have touched on; the steps and strategies needed to tackle those challenges; and the ways in which we fund and prioritise those steps. I will reflect briefly on those, making sure, of course, that the Minister has plenty of time to respond to all the questions that have been asked.

We have heard that HIV/AIDS is the No. 1 killer of women of reproductive age around the world. In our part of the world it is sometimes difficult to comprehend that, because it is not necessarily true in every individual country, or in developed countries such as ours. However, in developing parts of the world it is of particular concern. During the recess I was in Zambia with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The overall prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the country is 12.4% of the population—some 500,000 women. Yesterday I welcomed Jacqueline Kouwenhoven, who is Dutch born but is a Member of the National Assembly of Malawi. She is the Member of Parliament for the Rumphi West constituency. In Malawi the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among men is 8.1%, but among women it is 12.9%. That is a pretty stark demonstration of the disparity, and the disproportionate impact that HIV/AIDS has on women, which is reflected in other statistics we have heard in the debate. I think others have discussed how 74% of new HIV infections in 2014 among adolescents in Africa were among girls and women. That is 12,500 new infections every week, and it gives us a sense of the scale of the challenge.

There is a challenge in two respects. First, there is a challenge for the individuals, as HIV/AIDS limits their life chances and lowers their life expectancy, limiting their ability to work, contribute to society and live flourishing, dignified lives of their own. However, there is also a broader development challenge, in the form of a barrier to societal and economic development, starting at household level, because younger children may be taken out of school to provide care or take up income-generating activities. That has a knock-on effect on whole societies. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East quoted Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, on the importance of empowering women fully, as the simplest way for countries to increase their productive potential sustainably. Interestingly enough, the quotation came from a speech given to the Chinese Friendship Association in Beijing in July 2015. As we have come to expect, Nicola Sturgeon is not afraid to be a voice for the voiceless and to speak out, without fear or favour, around the world on issues of gender equality. That goes to the heart of the point made about the need for political leadership—both an holistic response to a holistic challenge, and political leadership to drive that response forward.

The steps needed to tackle the spread of HIV and AIDS among women and girls in particular fall into two key areas. The first is prevention, in its broadest sense. We have heard a lot in the debate about education, including education specifically for awareness—of status, safe practices and cultural barriers. All those things are important, and we have heard about some of the support that the Scottish Government are providing. A particularly interesting example came about through the small grants scheme, which allows the funding of small, innovative programmes. The Yes! Tanzania programme conducted a feasibility study on using its sports facilities to educate young people about the transmission of HIV and AIDS, and used the study to put the lessons into practice. It will deliver both sport and sexual health training to more than 60 community sports coaches, teachers and peer leaders, and through that method will reach more than 2,000 young people in Arusha in Tanzania. Hopefully it will go on to measure the impact of the work.

Using small grant funding can be a useful and innovative way to try out new techniques and to reach young women and men in particular, through forums where they might not traditionally have expected to receive such education. It would be useful to hear the Minister reflect on whether there any lessons he can learn from that kind of thing.

[Jim Shannon]

I would like to reiterate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Elim Church in my constituency—to give just one example—does fantastic work in Swaziland with young boys and girls who have HIV/AIDS. Some of the good work that the hon. Gentleman has been discussing, and that he asks DFID to do, is also being done by church groups throughout the United Kingdom. I mentioned the Elim Church, but the Presbyterian Church, the Church of Ireland, the Methodists, the Baptists and the Roman Catholic Church all do it as well. It is good to recognise some of the good work that other groups do.

[Patrick Grady]

I am sure we can all give examples from our constituencies or broader areas of interest of specific projects or programmes that have made a difference. An issue relating to some of the broader questions that have been asked about DFID is to do with its different priorities: the way in which it is leveraging the 0.7%, which we all welcome, and how that can be done as effectively and as holistically as possible. Having some flexibility to try to innovate in new areas and support small, dynamic projects is definitely one area for consideration.

There is the important question of education specifically about HIV/AIDS, which we have heard about, but there is a broader question of education as well. Although it is true that, as I have said a number of times—my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said it too—there is no silver bullet to global development, educating women and girls is about as close as we can get. Broader access to education—not just education on HIV/AIDS but, more broadly, education that trains and empowers women with the skills they need to take into society—can reverse the negative spiral that I spoke about at the beginning of my remarks. That economic empowerment is crucial.

[Angela Crawley]

I want to highlight again the need to educate men and boys on their role as community leaders, partners, fathers and brothers, because they also have a role to play in education.

[Patrick Grady]

Indeed. Speaking from my 36 years’ experience as a man, I entirely agree about the need to tackle all these issues. Education, in a range of different forums and of both men and women, is important.

Access to treatment is also crucial. It has been interesting to read in some of the documents supplied in preparation for the debate about the progress made in terms of prophylactic and preventive treatment such as the dipivirine ring trials and various other medical advances, which are incredibly encouraging. It is important that they are invested in and supported. That is why the points made, especially by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, about intellectual property in the development of pharmaceuticals is key. That has come up in numerous Westminster Hall debates on international development, in particular on tackling preventable disease. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to take forward those proposals—I was interested to hear that movement in that direction appeared in the Conservative manifesto.

Just as with education, where specific education and improvements in education across society as a whole is needed, the same is true in treatment. We need to be able to treat the specific symptoms, effects and infections and boost the overall level of wellbeing of society as a whole. That is where questions of food security and so on come in.

[Dr Lisa Cameron]

In addition to a medical model, does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that couples counselling is also offered to help in coming to terms with HIV diagnosis, reducing stigma and the risk of violence and desertion by a partner, and ensuring that adaptive coping strategies are applied?

[Patrick Grady]

That is a useful point. My hon. Friend brings considerable experience of those issues to the debate, so it is useful to have her contribution.

That brings us to funding and prioritisation. I generally echo all the questions directed at the Minister so far. On the prioritisation that DFID is prepared to give to the sustainable development goals, every credit is due to the Government for the role they played in the negotiation and establishment of those goals, which are a hugely comprehensive framework for global development. We now have a road map that can take us to the kind of world that we know is possible, which will allow us to reach other targets such as the 90-90-90 target, which has been referred to. However, I do not think I am alone, even in the Chamber, in being slightly disappointed by the lack of emphasis given to the sustainable development goals in the Command Paper, for example, or the lack so far of a joined-up Government approach or even of information about that. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East raised questions about monitoring.

Other mechanisms also need to be considered. The Global Fund is due for replenishment, so it would be interesting to hear a timetable from the Minister for the Government’s commitment. They have said repeatedly that they are prepared to give up to £1 billion, so my question has repeatedly been: if they are prepared to give up to £1 billion, why not just give £1 billion? The Global Fund knows how much money it needs and the UK has an opportunity to show global leadership by committing as much as it can to that replenishment.

Finally, the point about middle-income countries is crucial. I spoke about Zambia earlier on, and the definition of a middle-income country stretches from a GDP per head of something like—I do not have the figure in front of me—$1,500 to $13,000. In that vast range, a country can suddenly become a middle-income country and find itself less able to access the resources and support that helped it to attain that status. It would be interesting to know how the Government intend to support countries as they transition to middle-income status to reduce the risk of back-sliding in so many areas, not least HIV/AIDS transmission.

HIV is a preventable and treatable disease and we have the knowledge and ability to reduce transmission and improve access to treatment, especially with regard to women and girls. If we do that, we boost development, help to build stable societies and grow economies. Everyone benefits, but we must have the political leadership and willingness to invest effectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we plan to set out the results of our bilateral aid review over the coming weeks, but I can assure him that our support for multilateral mechanisms, such as the Global Fund, that do so much great work on tackling aid, will continue, and he will obviously be aware that HIV and AIDS particularly affect adolescent girls in a growing proportion, so it is important that we stay the course on this.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is great to see the Benches so packed for DFID questions. The more money the UK spends on ODA through other Departments, the more pressure there will be on DFID to deliver on its existing commitments. What impact will the changing use of ODA have on staffing numbers and capacity at Abercrombie House in East Kilbride?

[Justine Greening]

As I said to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), we will set out the results of our bilateral aid review shortly. The point of the new aid strategy is to achieve a cross-Government approach to drive development in the countries that we work with. I did not think it was right that DFID was carrying out all that work on its own. It is important to get other Departments to work alongside us to tackle extreme poverty.

Non-EU Citizens: Income Threshold

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate under the Petitions Committee system. I tried to squeeze into the debate on the Women Against State Pension Inequality petition, but I arrived about two minutes too late to get a seat, so I ended up sitting in what I believe is grandly called the “Press Gallery”—that little bench over at the side of the room—much to the chagrin of some members of the press. However, the fact that the Petitions Committee allows such debates to be triggered is a welcome development in this Parliament.

I note from the information provided by the Committee that 551 of my constituents have signed this petition—the 32nd highest number in the country—out of the 102,748 people who had signed the petition when I checked earlier this afternoon. I noticed that some of the constituencies with the highest number of signatories were held by Labour Members, so it is rather disappointing to see the paucity of Back Benchers from what is supposed to be the official Opposition party at such an important debate.

In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) noted that there had been a variety of immigration-based petitions, some of them pro-immigration and some less keen on various aspects of immigration. That demonstrates a disconnect across the country on the issues. There is certainly not any consensus behind the Government’s position, which seems to me to be driven by ideology and an obsession with the net migration target. It does not reflect any kind of consensus among the population at large, and certainly not among political parties or the different regions and nations of the United Kingdom.

We in the Scottish National party recognise that effective immigration controls are important, but the £35,000 threshold that we are discussing is just another poorly thought out, unfair immigration policy from the Government. I want briefly to look at the principles behind the policy and the complexity of it, and I will raise a couple of specific concerns and the need for a fairer approach.

As I said, it is pretty clear to SNP Members that the UK Government’s immigration policy comes from a certain kind of ideology and a determination to pander to some of the more unpleasant elements of the support for the Conservative party and some other parties. The 100,000 net migration target does not seem to be based on any needs analysis of what might be good for this society’s economy. Rather, it is a nice round number that sounds quite big, and the Government hope that it will placate certain Back Benchers and UK Independence party voters. Incidentally, and interestingly, UKIP voters seem to be concentrated in constituencies that do not have much immigration or many asylum seekers.

The effect of the target has been a whole series of unintended consequences and ever more tortuous mechanisms to try to reach the target, focusing on smaller and smaller sub-groups of immigrants. That is having a disproportionate impact on the economy, society, communities and, most importantly, the lives of individuals.

Despite all that, there have been reports that net migration is beginning to fall, even if, at 323,000, it is much higher than the Government’s arbitrary target. Such an arbitrary target is almost impossible to reach, because so many factors that affect it are outwith the Government’s control. For a start, they cannot change the number of UK citizens who, rightly and legitimately, might want to leave the United Kingdom to live and work in other parts of the world, whether in the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) said, or in other parts of the world. Nowhere in UK policy does there seem to be any consideration of how other countries might react to people from this part of the world who want to leave to work overseas.

That brings me to some of the failings of the proposal. A disappointing lack of parliamentary scrutiny has preceded its introduction, as is true of many aspects of immigration reform. This debate should be the beginning of a scrutiny process rather than, as is more likely, the end, after which the reforms will be introduced. As far as I am aware, there has never been a vote in the House on the matter, nor is there likely to be one.

Our approach is at odds with that of many other countries that are trying to attract and retain expertise and skilled workers. In 2011, the Institute for Public Policy Research said in response to the original proposal:

“It is significant that no other major country is moving in this direction. Indeed, countries whose skilled migration policies are widely praised, such as Canada or New Zealand, are taking precisely the opposite approach: they may be fairly selective about who is allowed to enter, but they assume that those who do enter will settle, and have integration policies designed to make that work.”

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that one reason why Canada and other nations are going in the opposite direction is the ageing population in the northern hemisphere and the limitations on the ability to deal with it?

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. An ageing population and a declining birth rate have disproportionately affected Scotland and various regions of the United Kingdom. That goes back to my point about immigration policy being designed to placate voters and political parties in parts of the country that do not have such a situation.

Bodies in a number of sectors have expressed a wide range of concerns about the policy. The Government have responded to some extent to the concerns expressed by the Royal College of Nursing and others about the impact on the health service, but my understanding is that the proposal to put nursing into a skills shortage category will be temporary, with no guarantees about what might happen in future.

We have heard about the impact on other sectors that rely on special skills but do not necessarily pay above the £35,000 threshold. My background is in the international development charitable sector. People come to that sector with a whole range of skills and experiences, but £35,000 is a pretty high salary in such a field.

We have heard quite a bit about the catering industry. I was reminded of a video that was doing the rounds on social media at the weekend: the famous Rowan Atkinson sketch from the 1980s in which he speaks as a Conservative politician saying, “Well, you know, we welcome these people from different parts of the world, and they brought us exotic cuisine such as curry, but now that we’ve learnt the recipe, there is no real need for any more of them.” That was supposed to be satire, yet here we are hearing exactly that sort of sentiment expressed by today’s Tory Government.

I have just come from the all-party group on music’s live music briefing. Our creative sectors benefit hugely from people being able to come into the country to share their expertise, drawing on our rich cultural heritage and bringing their own. Again, £35,000 is a significant salary in those sectors, especially in the early years of work. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) made a point about churn in such sectors. As a result of the policy, people might come for five or six years and then have to leave, only to try to come back 12 or 18 months down the line.

[Paul Scully]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whether it is in the catering industry, the music industry or any other industry, the Government’s default position on lower-paid jobs should be to train our own people first, and then to attract the skills we need beyond that?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, but those things need not be contradictory. People can come here with specific skills, and learn, develop and share their skills in different ways. The system will allow people to be here for five or six years precisely to develop professional skills and, hopefully, work their way up the ladder, but if they do not meet the arbitrary threshold they will face having to leave the country, forcing potential employers to start again, ultimately with more cost. The Government’s paper on the issue, signed on 14 March 2012 by the Minister who was responsible at the time, states that there will be a reduction

“in economic output—estimated at £181m to £575m over 10 years”.

Even the Government’s own estimate is that the policy will have a negative impact on the economy, but clearly they believe it is a price worth paying to hit their arbitrary target.

The impact on the economy, society and culture as a whole is important, but so is the impact on individuals. I suspect that all of us—certainly all SNP Members—have had constituents in similar circumstances. If they are not directly affected by the income threshold, they are certainly victims of other pernicious aspects of the UK Government’s immigration policy.

The first time I was drawn to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions—in fact, the only time—I raised the case of my constituent Steve Forman. I do not expect the Minister to have the details in front of him, but Dr Forman is a highly skilled musician, percussionist and teacher at the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. He did not meet a particular income threshold, so he was being forced out of the country. He was not costing the taxpayer a penny. He was earning an income on which he was paying tax. He has access to a private income from his considerable years of work and experience around the world. He was a musician for David Bowie, among many of his contributions, yet the Home Office saw fit to try to deport him. That is what is costing the taxpayer money. A fortune is being spent on appeals, tribunals and further legal processes. My constituent could have been allowed to stay in the country. He is still here, but with a massive question mark over his appeal, which seems to be snarled up. I do not expect an immediate response from the Minister, but a letter telling us where we are with his case would be much appreciated. That is but one of the many examples that come to our surgeries daily.

Immigration is essential to the strength of our economy and greatly adds to the social and cultural fabric of the country. This proposal is, sadly, one more aspect of an ideologically driven Tory policy that is all about pulling up the drawbridge irrespective of the needs of the economy and society across the United Kingdom. When I raised the case of my constituent at Prime Minister’s questions, I said that if the UK Government did not want to introduce an immigration policy suitable to Scotland’s needs, they could devolve immigration powers to Scotland and let us develop a policy that would work in Scotland’s interests.

Our vision is of a fair and sensible system of managed migration, with a measured strategy to make the most of the huge benefits that immigration can bring to the UK and Scotland. That stands in stark contrast with the Conservative approach. I have no doubt that we on the SNP Benches will continue to stand up for that, whether in Westminster Hall or during discussion of legislation on the Floor of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I, too, welcome the debate and am genuinely pleased to see the degree of engagement on this issue that use of the petitions facility has generated, not just in terms of numbers, although they are at first glance pretty remarkable, but in terms of the quality of submissions made possible through Parliament’s Facebook account. I also welcome the contribution of the campaign group Stop35k in engaging with those affected and making their voices heard.

We have heard some excellent speeches this afternoon, and I am pleased to see so many of my hon. Friends present. A lot of good points have been made. As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out, it is important to focus on the specific issue we are debating. It is not yet—thankfully—about raising the threshold for people who are coming here. People are being allowed to come here and take up jobs at a certain salary level that no resident could be recruited to do, but when those people put down roots, a huge extra salary hurdle is put in their way before they are able to gain settlement.

There are so many strong arguments in support of the petition and they broadly fall into two categories. The first is that the introduction of the new £35,000 salary requirement will cause a hell of a lot of pain. As some of my hon. Friends have argued, the second is the question of why we would want to inflict that pain. What is it all for? The answer seems to be that it is not for very much at all. I will take those two sides of the coin in turn.

The threshold will cause pain and, most importantly, distress and upheaval for so many people who have made their homes and built their careers in the UK over several years. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned a powerful constituency case. Indeed, so many individuals will have their lives, plans and dreams turned upside down by the new provisions. Parliament’s Facebook page and case studies provided by Stop35k have allowed those individuals to explain their personal experiences. I will add another two or three examples that I spotted when looking at Parliament’s Facebook page this afternoon.

A typical example is Shannon, who has been here for more than seven years and who, but for the changes, would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain in a year. She studied at Imperial College London and has worked ever since on a tier 2 visa, doing very good work for a charity based in central London that communicates original science and development news and analysis aimed at helping the global south. She says,

“I don’t have anything anywhere else. I hope you can help skilled people like us stay in our homes and continue contributing making the UK as unique as it is.”

Megan has three university degrees and works in the international development sector, in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned, very few jobs pay more than £35,000. She supports herself comfortably and presents no burden whatever to the UK system, but the rule means that she could be forced to leave. She argues:

“This £35k threshold determines the worth of an individual based solely on income rather than contribution to society, which is not just inhumane—it’s shortsighted. The UK will lose essential staff like nurses, teachers, and care workers, and for what?... I sincerely hope that Parliament will think better of this foolish, knee-jerk policy.”

Those case studies point out that people put down roots over time so the UK becomes home, and they illustrate the excellent contribution that those people make to our economy and society. Some might argue that people should have known that this was coming, but it is clear that many just simply did not know. One contributor to the Facebook page was pretty typical in saying:

“When I immigrated to the UK almost five years ago, there was no £35,000 rule…So the ‘deal’ I signed up for has been RADICALLY changed, but only after I uprooted my family and committed to this country…It’s iniquitous, in my opinion, to entice an immigrant with one set of rules, and then rip the rug out from under them like this.”

That point was also eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East.

Even if people were aware of the rule changes that were provisionally announced in 2011, they cannot refrain from getting on with life and they cannot make a conscious choice to not put down roots, make friends, or build up a home and private life here. Nor can we stop folk having the ambition of meeting the £35,000 threshold by the end of their visas.

First and foremost, the Scottish National party condemns the impact that the provision will have on the individuals who are directly affected. Beyond that, we need to consider the impact it will have on the businesses and public services that employ those people. We are talking about teachers, classical musicians, IT workers, software engineers, professional ballet dancers, chefs and cooks, carers, media workers, biomedical and technological researchers, and many people with jobs in science and research, including in the NHS. We are talking about start-ups, employees of which will often earn less than £35,000 but will make a significant contribution to innovation and economic growth.

We are still concerned about nurses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) pointed out, despite the Government’s temporary sticking plaster of using the shortage occupation list. Prior to that move, 3,365 nurses working in the UK potentially would have had to leave the country, with a recruitment cost implication of £20 million for the NHS. The Royal College of Nursing pointed out that there was a steep percentage rise in non-EU admissions to the Nursing and Midwifery Council register in 2015. If nursing is removed from the shortage occupation list again, the figures for future years are potentially even more worrying, particularly if overseas recruitment continues to rise as a result of a shortage of home-grown nurses and a crackdown on agency nurse spending. A stopgap answer for the NHS is not sufficient, but at least it has a stopgap measure—the other industries mentioned cannot rely on any such measure.

As several of my hon. Friends have argued, a one-size-fits-all policy is being used where, yet again, it is entirely inappropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, one size is being designed to fit all industries and jobs. The Government are also trying to make one size fit all nations and regions—a point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East. One size simply does not fit all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North highlighted the UK Government’s estimate of the damage to the UK economy of several hundred million pounds. Of course, the Migration Advisory Committee estimated that the cost to the UK economy would, in fact, be not far short of £800 million. The word “bonkers” springs to mind.

There will be personal pain, pain for business and public services, and economic pain, and for what? It is hard to find an up-to-date assessment of the numbers of people who will be affected but we are talking about comparatively small numbers in the grand scheme of things, particularly after various exceptions and exemptions are considered. Even the Government’s defence and response to the petition appears half-hearted, saying that the move

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

If the so-called gain is accepted, even by the Government, to be a modest one, why on earth inflict so much pain?

[Patrick Grady]

Is not the point that it is not really a modest measure, but a desperate one? The Government are so hidebound by this arbitrary target they have no chance of meeting that they will stop at nothing, even if it is at a cost to the economy and to people’s personal lives.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely agree. One word that could be used is “tokenism”. Someone described the measure to me as “immigration theatre”; it is all in pretend pursuit of the so-called target that my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North and for Edinburgh East ripped to pieces. No one believes that the target is a genuine one. I think the Government recognise, to some extent, the ridiculousness of the move—hence the creation of an exemption for those whose job has been on the shortage occupation list at any time in the six years prior to a settlement application. There is an exemption for migrants who work in a PhD-level occupation, and for those who have a tier 2 minister of religion visa or a tier 2 intra-company transfer visa. With so many large exemptions and exceptions, should not the rule that we are creating those exceptions for be considered absolutely absurd?

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) rightly asked, what assessment has been done of the displacement effect of the change? Will not the lives of thousands of non-EU citizens be disrupted, only for so many of them to be replaced with fresh migrant employees? If so, what on earth is the point?

The Home Office’s 2012 impact assessment states:

“The goal is a smarter, more selective, more responsive system that commands public confidence and serves the UK’s economic interests.”

In fact, all the signs are that the measure will have a negative economic impact and will undermine, yet further, any confidence that the public has in what the UK Government are doing on immigration.

I know that the policy was inherited by the Minister for Immigration and I know that his hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, who is responding for the Government today, has had nothing to do with it either. I wish that they would ditch it not only as singularly unhelpful, but as harmful and hurtful for all concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 do not think anyone could dispute that we would certainly have greater flexibility if we were not in the EU, but many of us would argue that the benefits of being in the EU are so significant that that would be a small point. For the record, that includes me; I totally agree with that view.

It should also be placed on record that numbers of those using tier 2, the skilled work route, have increased by 35% since 2010. Even if we were not experiencing high levels of migration from the EU, I argue that we would still need to reform the rules leading to such large population flows into the UK. I have dealt as much as I can in this debate with the EU issue. I have certainly given the Government’s view, which—luckily for me —coincides with my personal view on these matters.

In the past, it has been too easy for some employers to choose to bring in workers from overseas rather than invest in training for our existing workforce. On average, employers in the UK underinvest in training compared with those in other countries, with a marked decline over the past 20 years. In an increasingly global economy, it is not surprising that many skilled workers come to the UK for a short time to fill a temporary skills gap, or perhaps to experience work in another country, but—this is an important point—reducing migration is not just about reducing the numbers coming here. It is also about being more selective in who we allow to settle permanently. In 2015, some 44%, or nearly half, of all migrants granted settlement in the UK—

[Patrick Grady]

How does the Minister answer the point that other countries with skill shortages are actively encouraging people to come? Moreover, what kind of message does he think this policy sends to other countries to which UK citizens might want to travel or emigrate?

[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.

Humanitarian Crisis: Greece

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), I recognise the role that DFID has already played, but can the Secretary of State confirm that her response today does not include any new announcements of funding or resource? Does that mean that this latest crisis was somehow foreseen in the needs analysis that the Government carried out before the funding announcements that they have already made? What general needs analysis was carried out before the Government decided to double their pledge at the Syria funding conference? The UK Government’s response cannot simply be about funding; at some point we must take our fair share of refugees from Europe to the United Kingdom, and by anyone’s calculation, 20,000 people over four years is not a fair share.

[Justine Greening]

First, our pledge to slightly more than double existing support to the crisis in Syria and the region affected by it was sensible and reflects the situation on the ground and what is needed. If we are to do the right thing, that means going beyond simply providing day-to-day life-saving supplies, because we must also get children back in school. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of Britain as not having played its role in helping people more directly in the region to relocate. The Prime Minister has set out what I think is a sensible approach of taking 20,000 people over the course of this Parliament. Those will be the most vulnerable people who would otherwise have absolutely no prospect of getting out of that region. We are working directly with UN agencies and with local authorities around the country to help those people do just that. There will also be people in Scotland who provide a home to those people, and we must ensure that when we bring them to the UK, it is done in a sensible, measured and effective manner.

Syria Crisis: UK Response

Patrick Grady Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

These are two related issues. One, as I have said, is that we are, of course, playing our role close to home—here in Europe—in helping refugees who have finally arrived on our shores. However, my hon. Friend is right to recognise that, overwhelmingly, refugees basically want to stay close to home. I met a lady on my last trip to Jordan whose family were still in Homs, and she had intermittent contact with them. For her, the prospect of even considering leaving Jordan was totally not what she was looking at; what she desperately needed was to be able to work legally to support herself while she tried to get on with the life she suddenly found herself living.

As I said, at the beginning of this crisis, none of the refugees thought that they were leaving Syria for anything more than a few weeks or months, and we should all think about how we would cope with such situations. It is incumbent on the international community, though, to make sure that we now go beyond providing just day-to-day support, so that people are not just alive but able to have some kind of life. That is in their interests, but it is also in the interests of the host communities, which are so generously accommodating them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for giving us early sight of it. The Scottish National party, too, welcomes the pledges and commitments made at the conference. We recognise the achievement of securing the biggest ever pledges made in one day and particularly the commitments on child education and jobs. However, I echo the concerns about the difference between making and fulfilling a pledge, and it would be helpful to hear what discussion there was at the conference about processes for monitoring and implementing the pledges, bearing in mind the gap between last year’s pledges and the actual assessed need.

There is a feeling in some quarters that civil society—especially local and national Syrian civil society organisations—was under-represented. However, it is those organisations that are often the front-line responders to the crisis and that have the access inside Syria that international counterparts do not. It would be useful to hear what role the Secretary of State sees civil society on the ground having in decision making and implementation as aid is disbursed.

While recognising the role the Government have played, I echo the concerns about the response to the refugee crisis in Europe. Analysis from Oxfam suggests that, rather than 20,000 refugees over four years, the UK’s fair share would be 24,000 this year alone. How will the commitments the UK made at the conference support those displaced by the conflict, especially those already in Europe?

Finally, the only viable long-term solution, as we have heard, must be a negotiated peace. What discussions is the Secretary of State continuing to have with her Cabinet colleagues about the impact of UK airstrikes, and does she believe that the UK’s involvement has helped or hindered its role as a peacemaker; and how can the Government be confident that their bombing is not adding to human misery, and that, while seeking to improve the humanitarian response on the one hand, they are not adding to the crisis on the other?