Immigration

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The opening remarks of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) were constructive in tone and content, although I may not have agreed with them all.

Leaving the European Union provides us with a unique opportunity to reshape and maximise the benefits of immigration to the UK, through a sensible, fairer system that nurtures talent at home while attracting the best talent from around the world for the benefit of the UK economy. Although I wholeheartedly welcome the skills-based approach to immigration in the White Paper, it failed to recognise the differing immigration needs of sectors in different parts of the country. One of the many criticisms of the European Union was its blanket approach to regulation; what was right in one part of the European Union was not always right in the other. We should not lose sight of that, or make the same mistakes in the United Kingdom.

As a Scottish Conservative, let me say that I am unashamedly pro-immigration. People from across the world have made East Renfrewshire their home. Immigration is good, necessary and desirable; we want it, and we need it. I also discard the notion that migrants are somehow solely responsible for pressures on our public services and the housing market. The reason people cannot get a GP appointment in East Renfrewshire has nothing to do with an influx of eastern Europeans, and everything to do with the Scottish National party’s woeful handling of health matters in the Scottish Parliament. Blaming problems in our personal lives and in the nation’s life on migrants is lazy and wrong.

Turning to the White Paper, it is vital to regional and sectoral economies across the United Kingdom that our approach to immigration be flexible, based on evidence, and not one-size-fits-all. Many of Scotland’s key sectors—food and drink, oil and gas, fisheries and agriculture—have real and specific needs. I think that the failure to recognise that was one of the reasons the White Paper was met with such hostility and negativity from various groups and business and industry leaders across Scotland.

As has already been discussed, under the current proposals, to be granted a work visa a migrant must secure a job paying at least £30,000 a year. I am not sure who that threshold was designed for, but it was certainly not designed for the labour market in Scotland, or, presumably, for any other labour market outside London and the south-east. While it would be great if average earnings were £30,000 a year, that is not where we are as an economy. It is important to remember that salary and skills are not the same thing, as is frequently demonstrated in this place.

Fisheries, agriculture, hospitality and care jobs range from low to medium-skilled. They are industries that depend heavily on migrant workers, and they do not pay anywhere near £30,000. It would, of course, be brilliant if we could see more domestic workers going into such professions in the future, but, in the short term, if those industries are to operate as they do now they will need continued relatively easy access to labour. I welcome the Home Office’s reflection on the £30,000 figure, but I question the legitimacy of an arbitrary threshold, and I am not sure that regional differentiation is the answer. Personally, I should prefer a uniform threshold at a lower level: a threshold of about £18,000 might be sensible.

Similar logic applies to student visas. Under the current proposals, the UK will offer leave to remain under student visas to last for three years. Given that a normal undergraduate degree course in Scotland lasts for four years, that proposal is clearly hopeless and needs to be changed, as I think the Home Office has already recognised.

Overseas students not only choose to invest large sums in higher education across the UK, but spend significant sums while they are here, contributing growth to the economy and adding to indirect taxation revenue. I do not want to see a student visa system that incentivises overseas students to pick universities elsewhere in the UK while Scotland potentially misses out on those benefits simply because it structures its degrees slightly differently. We should also consider the longer-term benefits of retaining highly skilled students in the UK jobs market, including the benefits to our economy. We need an immigration system that nurtures the best talent to remain in the UK, deploying the skills gained here, rather than encouraging a brain-drain to the detriment of our economy, whether in Scotland or in the rest of the UK. I therefore think that post-study work visa schemes should be a priority.

We on the Scottish Affairs Committee have done a great deal of cross-party work in this regard, considering in particular the issues of changing demographics in Scotland and depopulation issues. Thanks to the Government’s record, we have pretty much full employment, so the idea that gaps can be filled by our growing the “indigenous workforce”—or whatever the term is—is a fantasy. Technology takes time, and only goes so far; we need, and will always need, people to come to our country to work. However, we must also ask ourselves why a smaller percentage of those coming to the UK from the EU come to Scotland than should be the case on the basis of our population.

What we desperately need, both in this Chamber and in the one up the road, is a mature debate on why fewer people than we want and expect come to Scotland, why people leave, and what meaningful action both Governments can take in the years ahead to change that. What we do not need is the attitude of Fergus Ewing, one of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretaries. When it was pointed out to him that evidence given to the Scottish Affairs Committee about the seasonal agriculture workforce showed that some people in Bucharest had said that they were not very interested in coming to Scotland to pick soft fruits, he said that all that showed was that the UK Government and their agencies could not be trusted to sell a positive story about Scotland. I thought that that was incredibly immature and not remotely helpful, and suggested an unwillingness to engage seriously with the issues that we face.

Demographic challenges are acute throughout the UK. Unsurprisingly, I reject the notion that the answer lies in devolved immigration policy, especially when, as far as I am aware—I am sure that an SNP Member will correct me if I am wrong—it is still the SNP’s position that the devolved immigration policy should be implemented and enforced by the Home Office through border control, presumably so that the SNP can blame UK Government agencies for any problems, as it does in every other context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned some of the agencies that do not support the devolution of immigration policy. It is important to note that that is not because it is not technically or theoretically possible, but because it is not desirable, and not in the best interests of Scotland. A number of organisations have stated clearly that Scotland’s needs could and should be best met through a UK-wide system.

We need the future immigration system to be nimble and flexible enough to adapt to the changing requirements of our economy. The ridiculous “tens of thousands” target has never been met, and does not fit the requirements of the United Kingdom. No arbitrary targets, please: the right level of immigration for the UK is whatever number is needed at that particular point in time, in the areas where we need it.

We need a flexible immigration system that works for every part of the UK. In Scotland, that means recognising the needs of different sectors of the economy. Farming, fish processing, hospitality and social care all rely heavily on foreign labour, and will continue to do so. Business leaders have rightly voiced concerns about the immigration White Paper, and those concerns should be taken on board and reacted to. Changes must deliver for Scotland.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

There have been quite a few selective quotations, particularly in respect of the NFUS. Does the hon. Gentleman recall, from the immigration inquiry conducted by the Scottish Affairs Committee some time ago, evidence submitted by the NFUS, which said that it

“would prefer an all-UK system but would support alternatives if the Westminster Government is unable to develop the systems needed in time to prevent a hiatus in worker availability”?

I suggest that that hiatus is upon us.

[Paul Masterton]

I thought that ours was a very good inquiry. That is why I said that I did not believe that the devolution of immigration policy was not possible. It is perfectly possible, but I do not believe that it is in Scotland’s best interests, and that is what the NFUS was saying. It said that the best way forward for Scottish industry and the Scottish economy was to retain it in a UK-wide network. We have the opportunity here and now, post Brexit, to create that network—a network that will work.

Post Brexit, we will be building our own immigration policy for the first time in more than 40 years. We need to use it as a chance to prove to the world that we are still an open, inclusive and welcoming nation. That is not always evident from debates here, and from things that certain people say on television. If people throughout the world want to come to our great country to build or rebuild their futures, is we should welcome, celebrate and be proud of that. It is a sign of our success as a nation, not something to be afraid of.

Immigration, ultimately, is not some problem that needs to be fixed. John Major said that there was nothing as Conservative as pulling your loved ones close and striking out to build a better future for your family, and he was absolutely right. As we build that new immigration system, let us ensure that those words, and that attitude, remain at the heart of our approach.

Immigration Rules: Paragraph 322(5)

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. That chimes with many of the stories I have heard. We must think particularly about the impact on children, who do not know why their parents are not allowed to work all of a sudden. Some people have not been able to access medical care for their children, which is deeply worrying.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is aware of my constituent, to whom this rule was applied. In many ways, the biggest impact was on his wife, because NHS Scotland removed her access to medical services, even though she was eight months pregnant. Although NHS Scotland and Home Office staff have very difficult jobs in highly stressful situations, mistakes can have serious consequences that are hard to unpick.

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I had cause to meet his constituent, and I was so concerned about his situation that I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport in Scotland to ensure that all GP practices in Scotland understand that they cannot just take people off their lists in such circumstances. Certainly, women who are eight months pregnant need medical care and should not lose it due to Home Office errors.

Windrush

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will come to that later in my speech.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Forgive me, but can I make a little progress?

With respect to the intervention by the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), not only did the former Home Secretary apologise but she resigned over the issue. That is a significant event. It is rare in our politics today that Ministers pay the ultimate price and resign, and that is what has happened.

There is a great deal of contrition, and there have been apologies. Not only that, but a helpline has been put in place to make it as easy as possible for people to find the right documentation. We have also heard about a policy to compensate people who have suffered the excesses of the Home Office. There has been plenty of policy and plenty of speeches, announcements and contrition on the part of the governing party.

I am not suggesting that every Labour Member is exploiting this issue for political ends—I do not believe that at all. I have heard many compelling and sincere speeches, but there is a suspicion that one or two Labour Members are doing so.

Seasonal Migrant Workers

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

I will speak briefly and quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) on securing it.

Between 2007 and 2013, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme facilitated Romanians and Bulgarians travelling to the UK for seasonal work on farms and, in 2012, the year before the scheme closed, 513 farms used the scheme and almost 21,000 work cards were issued. Seasonal workers from overseas have played a crucial role in the agricultural industry. For all the technology we now see on farms, and for all the automation and robotics, a human hand is still needed for many of the jobs involved in getting food from the farm to the supermarket shelf. As we have heard in the debate, 80,000 people a year make their way to this country to assist in this process. Ensuring a reliable workforce is available is so important, or else we will find ourselves in situations where fruit and crops are left to rot and waste.

There are worrying signs that a shortfall is affecting the industry. Last year, there was a shortage of 15% in seasonal migrant workers in the horticultural sector. The Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is currently carrying out an inquiry into immigration. We have heard from a range of sectors who are experiencing, or are concerned about, such shortfalls and pressures. While members of that Committee may ultimately disagree about how we best tackle those problems—some preferring a regional approach, others, such as myself, inclined to look more towards a UK-wide sectoral response—there is no question but that immigration is necessary, and will continue, and we need to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place for individuals to come to work and live.

Immigration is not just necessary; it is also good and desirable. Britain would not even be half as “Great” today if it were not for immigration. It is for these reasons that I am joining calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Angus and many others in the Chamber today for the reintroduction of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which will allow people to come to this country to fill the gaps in our domestic workforce.

Such a scheme would allow us to guarantee access to the skills and labour that our rural businesses need, while also allowing the Government an important element of control over the number of people arriving here for work. Although I accept that immigration and the desire to control it underpinned a significant element of the vote to leave the EU, I cannot accept it was a direction to Government to somehow end immigration to this country and pull up the drawbridge. Rather, I take it as a signal that the British people want the British Government to be able to control the numbers who come here, based on our current needs. A seasonal agricultural workers scheme would allow us to do this, opening up more places at times of high demand and reducing them when the domestic workforce can cover the gaps.

Our post-Brexit approach to immigration should be flexible. The correct level of immigration to the United Kingdom is the amount of immigration we need at any point in time. We must be able to adapt our approach as our society and economy change. Another benefit of a seasonal scheme would be our ability to open it up more widely. Even prior to 2013, only select European countries could take advantage. I would like any new system to be open to anyone from any country who has the necessary skills and expertise.

Earlier this year, the Home Affairs Committee released a report, part of which looked at the old seasonal workers scheme. The Committee was overwhelmingly positive about it, saying it was

“well managed by the Home Office”

and that

“growers got a supply of efficient labour, migrants received a good wage, British workers were not displaced and integration issues were limited”.

Following such a glowing report, why would we not reintroduce a similar scheme now?

Of course, in addition to any new seasonal workers scheme, I would like to see the Government taking steps to bolster the skills of the domestic workforce here in the UK and to do more to encourage locals into this kind of work. But it is important to recognise what employers are telling us: in this line of work, it is hard to recruit workers in sufficient numbers from the UK. That is the reality, so we must have a system that allows us access to the labour we need.

Contrary to common belief, a lot of this seasonal work is skilled. It is undoubtedly hard and time-consuming. The people who come to this country contribute to our thriving rural communities, and I am delighted to support a motion that would make it easier for that to happen. I urge the Government to take forward the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus in the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman referred to police services, but I think he meant to say “fire”, so I refer him to my earlier answer: funding for fire services has kept pretty flat against a background of fire incidents falling; we feel that fire services are adequately resourced; and how resources are allocated is down to local authorities and leaders.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

T8. Prior to Christmas, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Syrian refugees who now call East Renfrewshire their home. One of them, Nader Bani Almarja, is looking to be reunited with his family, who remain in Lebanon. I appreciate that the Home Office can only consider applications that come directly from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but will the Home Secretary explain how her Department works with UNHCR to facilitate the resettlement scheme so that families, once identified for resettlement, do not get stuck in an administrative logjam?

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend has been a constant representative for his constituents on this issue. We rely on UNHCR to identify and process the most vulnerable refugees as it is uniquely placed to determine refugee status, and to assess vulnerabilities, needs and suitability for resettlement. If UNHCR decides that resettlement is the most appropriate solution, it will then consider which resettlement scheme best suits people’s needs, which may be a UK scheme.

Online Hate Speech

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I point out to the hon. Lady that the Prime Minister has robustly replied to the President and made her views absolutely clear. On the hon. Lady’s other proposal, we do not routinely comment on individual exclusion cases.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Is the Home Secretary satisfied that President Trump’s behaviour—this is not an isolated incident—does not undermine our important security and co-operation relationship with the United States? May I also say that just because somebody stops using Twitter, it does not mean that they cease to be a twit?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on it, if I may say so, in the first half of his comment when he talks about the importance of that close relationship. However strongly hon. Members feel about the President, we must protect the particular relationship that we have with the US, which does so much to keep British people safe.

General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Paul Masterton Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is why it is important to call out abuse in such circumstances, and to have debates of this kind. I congratulate the Government again on making available the time for it.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the targeting of the homes of Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and others. I think I am right in saying that the addresses of candidates in elections to the Scottish Parliament do not appear on postal votes or on the ballot paper, and I wonder whether we should consider introducing the same arrangement for elections to this place.

[Patrick Grady]

I think a consensus is emerging on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) drew attention to the anomaly whereby, although one of our colleagues was able to anonymise their address on the ballot, their partner was standing for the council and therefore had to publish the address, which completely negated the arrangement.