Migration

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

If the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) does not mind, I will not go too far down his line, except to say that if that is his appeal at the next general election, SNP Members are more likely to get the 37% of the vote that they got in 2017 rather than the percentage that they think they might get if they had everything their own way.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for proposing this debate, and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

It is worth remembering that the population of London 11,000 years ago was nothing. People migrated to London after the end of the Little Ice Age. If most of us look back through our family histories, or the family histories of those our families married into, we will find a great deal of mixture. I know that when some of my grandchildren were at school in California, there was an incredible mix of people in their classes.

A few days ago, Mr Speaker gave a reception in Speaker’s House for Multicultural Falklands. In the last census in the Falkland Islands, there was a population of 3,662, with 68 nationalities—from A for Australia to Z for Zimbabwe. If I may say so, I pay particular tribute to Zimbabweans who helped in the mine clearing and who obeyed the normal Falkland Islands rule that if a person lives there for more than 20 months, they will want to stay there and go on living there.

In 2005, in issue 3, volume 38, of the International Migration Review, which is linked to the Centre for Migration Studies, there is an article about the factors that make and unmake migration policies. In summary, migration policies often fail to achieve their declared objectives or have unintended consequences—well, that is a big surprise. It suggests that there are three reasons: the social dynamics of the migration process; factors linked to globalisation and transnationalism; and political systems.

I was reminded by somebody whom I met just before lunch today, who had been on a course run by the Royal College of Defence Studies in Belgrave Square, that 10 or so years ago, when they were having discussions about what the major issues would be over the next two or three decades, it was decided that it was going to be migration from Africa, where there are many unstable states, where climate change is making a difference and where there is not an ordinary flexible political or economic system. We all know that flexible economic systems lead to a growth in prosperity, as has been shown in many countries around the world. Where that is denied and there is high-level persistent civil war, people want to move out. Our ancestors did; we would.

However, that is not to say that we can just forget about migration. If there is uncontrolled migration against the policies of a country, there is unrest and uproar. This is one of the very few countries where, in a democratically elected Parliament, there are no extremists—whether from the left or the right. Some would put that down in part to our parliamentary system; others would put it down to other factors. I think that it is because, over the past 50 years or so, our migration and immigration policies have been debated fiercely.

There have been great arguments ever since James Callaghan, who was Home Secretary in the late 1960s, started putting controls on British passport holders from east Africa, even though, five years later, the Government—Robert Carr in particular and Edward Heath—rightly decided to admit the Ugandan Asians. I was honoured to be at Buckingham Palace when the King, in his first big public occasion, had a celebration service for the 50th anniversary of the Ugandan Asians coming here. We stood up and did what was right. We are doing the same thing with the people from Hong Kong, from Syria and from Ukraine.

My grandmother was a host to some White Russians after the great war. My parents had a Hungarian refugee in the 1950s, pushing one of the children out of their room. My wife and I had Ugandan Asians and Zimbabwean refugees. There are people who are prepared to do their bit.

That is not to say that there is uncontrolled immigration, although I do warn visitors I take round the Palace of Westminster that the memorial to the Kindertransport process was something that people are proud of now, but that many opposed at the time.

Then there is the question: why only 10,000 children? What about their parents and the like? Some of those questions are unanswerable in a seven-minute contribution, but I would say that a Government—whether this Government or any alternative Government—who expect to get attention from both sides of the House should try to have policies that are not only likely to be fair and effective and that have a degree of humanity, but that recognise that a country such as this cannot accept very large numbers of people coming outside the rules. Inside the rules is one thing; outside the rules is another. That is why my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has not had detailed criticism from me on what he is trying to achieve. We know that what he is trying to do is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald]

The Minister shakes his head. What a shameful way to behave. I am trying to assist people in grave need and this says everything about the UK Government’s approach to migration. It should not be like this, Minister. Migration and migrants can bring a positive benefit to our communities and people who are in the gravest peril deserve a good deal more support and respect. It is not just me and the Scottish National party saying that. Opinium polled a large number of UK adults on the Illegal Migration Bill and the people it spoke to felt that the way people seeking asylum are described in political debate is “overly negative”. I thought that was interesting because that is not what someone would believe if they stood in the Chamber and listened to the UK Government.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am going to continue, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as time is limited. We all see the impact of migration policies. There are labour shortages and skills shortages, and Scottish need is certainly not taken into account by the UK Government. Whether it is the kind of cases I talked about, floating internment camps, boat pushbacks, deportation flights or the circumventing of international law, the depths that this Government will sink to on migration are frankly depressing. They are hostile in every way. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North put that well.

The Prime Minister has had his say, too. He said:

“If you are coming here illegally, claiming sanctuary from death, torture or persecution”.

That is Orwellian doublespeak because international law determines that, if someone is fleeing death, torture or persecution, they are seeking refuge legally. Nobody is illegal. It is not only confusing in that way. The Home Office’s own logic is not logical. It said:

“Alternative accommodation options”—

that is how it puts things—

“including barges, will save the British taxpayer money.”

But the very same Home Office is set to spend up to £6 billion over two years on detention facilities and ongoing accommodation and removal costs, and Treasury insiders say that the deterrent effect has not been reliably modelled, meaning that the numbers are likely to be wrong and costs much greater. The Refugee Council correctly says that barges are

“entirely unsuitable for the needs”

of those seeking refuge and are a

“direct consequence of the chronic delays and huge backlog in the asylum system”.

Not only that, but a third of the UK’s international aid budget is actually being spent on domestic asylum costs. The system is not working because it is underpinned by policies that are simply wrong.

The Illegal Migration Bill has been widely condemned across civil and political society. A coalition of 176 civil society organisations is calling on the UK Government to immediately withdraw it because it potentially breaches multiple international conventions and agreements. That is on top of the fact that UK family reunion rules are already among the most restrictive in Europe. The Dubs scheme for refugee children was prematurely closed. Brexit—that elephant in the room that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Opposition want to talk about—means that Dublin family reunion applications are no longer possible. My constituents really care about this. I hear a lot from constituents who are deeply worried about why we are not showing compassion for children who seek to come here for sanctuary, and why we are turning our back and turning our face away. I understand their concerns, and I agree with them. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is “profoundly concerned” about the direction of travel, saying that it

“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the UK for people who arrive irregularly, no matter how compelling their claim”.

The chief executive of the Refugee Council is also concerned.

I spoke to the ladies from the VOICES Network whom the British Red Cross hosted here yesterday, and the main thing they want is a safe place to live for women seeking asylum. It does not seem like very much, does it? They are just looking to be treated with a bit of dignity, and the SNP wants to see migrants being given that dignity. We want them to have the right to work and to contribute to the society they call home, but they have no right to work here and no access to social security support in too many cases. The right to work, as article 23 of the universal declaration of human rights tells us, is a fundamental right, not that you would believe that here. People can apply for the right to work only after they have been waiting for more than one year, and even then very few are granted permission. People are essentially banned from working. Not only is that very unfortunate and difficult for them, but it is very unfortunate and difficult for us, as we miss out on the skills and talents that they bring with them.

The UK is an outlier. Other countries do not deal with things this way. Imagine the benefit to our NHS of allowing doctors trained elsewhere to come here and to work to look after the people here who need it. We are also completely opposed to the “no recourse to public funds” policies, which are blocking migrant groups from essential safety nets. Migrants, who are already likely to be vulnerable and in low-paid and insecure work, are therefore disproportionately likely to be at risk of destitution.

Then there are the unaccompanied children. Over 4,000 have been placed in hotels since 2021, and 200 children remain missing. That is shocking; it is inconceivable. The UK Government clearly cannot be trusted as a corporate parent, and the Scottish Government are deeply concerned about this. Scotland does take its responsibilities seriously. The Scottish Government want no part of the UK Government’s “hostile environment” approach to refugees and asylum seekers, or people who are among the most vulnerable in the world—[Laughter.] I do not know why the Minister finds this funny, because I do not think it is funny at all.