Student Visas

Debate between Peter Grant and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

We said in the announcement this week that, with the Department for Education, we will launch a consultation with the university sector to design a longer-term alternative to the system that previously operated, which could be a more nuanced approach. But I think that the determination that we have made this week is the right one, which is that those people coming into the UK to study will be able to bring in dependants only if they are doing those high-value, usually longer-term, research-based courses such as PhDs, and those coming for short courses will invariably not be able to do so. That will cut out some of the abuse that we have seen in the system and will focus universities on their primary responsibility, which is teaching and education, rather than in some cases being a back door to immigration and to work.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Later this afternoon, my much-valued international student Jacqueline will spend the last few hours of her time here before she completes her internship. She has been a massive asset to my office, as were the other London School of Economics interns and other interns I have had the privilege of working with over the last number of years. What should I say to her? Should I say, “Thank you—you have been a boon to this place and these islands” or, “You’re a problem that has to be controlled”?

[Robert Jenrick]

It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman did not spread misinformation to his researcher or indeed anyone else. It was the Government, through the international education strategy, who created this commitment, which has proven to be so successful that it has led to 600,000 international students coming to the UK—perhaps including the lady he referred to. We also created the graduate route, which has enabled people—potentially including his researcher—to move seamlessly into the workplace here in the UK after their studies rather than having to apply immediately for a work or family visa as used to happen. There is no suggestion of any diminution in our support for universities or international students, but it is right that we get a grip on abuses or unintended consequences. That is what Governments have to do when trying to control an immigration system. Perhaps he does not want controlled immigration. We do, and that is why we have to take these steps.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Debate between Peter Grant and Robert Jenrick

Report stage
Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, which is in my name. The new clause empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance to authorities that administer public sector pensions schemes that they may not make investments that conflict with the United Kingdom’s foreign and defence policy.

The new clause will resolve a long-standing issue that arose out of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and the Local Government Pension Scheme (Management and Investment of Funds) Regulations 2016. The issue was whether the Secretary of State had, under their general power to issue guidance provided under the 2013 Act, the ability to guide those who administer pension schemes, particularly local government pension schemes, away from making investment decisions that were contrary to the United Kingdom’s foreign and defence policy.

In 2020, the Supreme Court found by a split decision that the 2013 Act did not confer on the Secretary of State the necessary power to issue that guidance. The purpose of the new clause is to change that by explicitly laying out in law the Secretary of State’s power to offer the guidance to administrators of pension schemes within the public sector, including the local government pension schemes, that investment decisions—by which I mean both investments into a position and divestments from a position—should not conflict with UK foreign and defence policy.

There are multiple reasons for doing that. First and foremost, public service pension schemes that are paid for by the taxpayer by one means or another and underwritten by the state are clearly the preserve of the UK Government and, as such, it is perfectly legitimate that the UK Government have a say in regulating how public pension schemes manage the money that is provided to them by we the taxpayers of the country.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I just probe the right hon. Gentleman’s last point a wee bit? My bank account is stuffed full of what was previously taxpayers’ money. Neither I nor my wife have had any significant income for years that did not come one way or another from the taxpayer. Is he suggesting that the Government should have some say as to how the bank can invest my money to make sure that I get it back when I need it? Is he suggesting that the private pensions that I am lucky enough to have should be subject to Government direction as to where they do and do not invest?

[Robert Jenrick]

I shall come on in a moment to my own personal views with respect to boycott, divestment and sanctions, but this new clause has no bearing on the actions of private citizens. This is about public sector pension schemes. The broader issue, which I will mention in a moment with respect to tackling BDS within public institutions and the public sector, is all about the public sector; it is not about limiting the freedom of speech or action of the individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I agree strongly with both my hon. Friend’s points. On his second point, the motion before Wirral Council is to ask its pensions officer to be the arbitrator of which business it should or should not be investing in within Israel and within settlements. Pity this poor individual, who, instead of going about his normal work as a respectable, hard-working local government officer, must suddenly spend hours, days, weeks or months attempting to understand the intricacies of the Israel-Palestine question and provide advice to a committee of local councillors. It is frankly an absurdity and an abuse of that individual. We should not be seeing this. These questions should rightly be taken forward by the United Kingdom Government.

BDS is ultimately yesterday’s war. In the middle east today things are rapidly changing, and thank goodness for that. As a result of the Abraham accords, we see Arab nations—Gulf states—coming forward to recognise the state of Israel and work with it through science, technology, education and commerce. If Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and other nations can do this—even those countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that have not explicitly recognised the state of Israel but are none the less working with it on security matters and other issues—then we as a country should not be tolerating this kind of activity, and certainly not within the public sector. I urge hon. and right hon. Members across the House to support the new clause. I am grateful to the Government for indicating their support. I hope that in the Queen’s Speech later in the spring we will see a wider BDS Bill that makes the UK one of the first countries in the world to really grapple with this issue.

[Peter Grant]

As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, the SNP supports the intention behind this Bill and we will support it on Third Reading. The intention is to clear up a mess of the Government’s making. I also repeat that, as I said in Committee, I do not have any doubts at all about the sincerity of the Ministers who have led for the Government at various stages of the Bill. I am convinced that they want to get it right and to finish up with an Act that is as fair to everyone as it is possible to be. However, my concern with the Bill currently before us is that even after the Government’s amendments are added in, sizeable numbers of current or former public sector employees will lose out. Given where we have been forced to start from and the scale of the mess that the Government made of this previously, I am not sure that it would ever be possible to produce a Bill that would be fair to absolutely everyone, but the Bill as it stands can still be improved. To that end, we will support such amendments as Opposition Front Benchers want to press to a vote, particularly new clauses 8 and 9.

One of the issues I raised on Second Reading has certainly come to pass: the extraordinary number of amendments the Government had had to table to their own legislation during its passage through the House of Lords. We now know that including the 61 amendments they tabled in Committee and the 28 further amendments tabled today, by the time the Bill gets its Third Reading later on the Government will have had to amend their own legislation no fewer than 212 times. In fact, Members who attended the Bill Committee will have seen the spectacle of the Government tying themselves in knots trying to remove two entire clauses from the Bill and replace them with two entirely new clauses. It was only the speedy intervention of the Clerks and the Chair that prevented the Government from presenting us with a Bill that had all four clauses included despite the fact that some of them were completely contradictory to the others. Eventually the Government had to whip their own Members to vote down two clauses that the Minister had already moved, presumably by mistake.

That incident served only to highlight what many of us on the Opposition Benches have been saying from the beginning—that the Government still cannot reassure us that they are genuinely fully in control of this Bill. I worry that they are very quickly running out of last chances to put it right. There is still a danger that the Bill that receives its Third Reading later today will have flaws and weaknesses that neither the Government nor anybody else have spotted yet. Most of today’s Government amendments are part of the process of picking up flaws or ambiguities in the original Bill, and we will not oppose them. We have some concerns about new clause 7, which provides for a lessening of parliamentary scrutiny in some cases. The Minister has not yet convinced me that that is an appropriate thing to do. I hope that when he winds up he will explain why new clause 7 is appropriate and why, in some cases, parliamentary scrutiny should be diluted in any way.

As I indicated earlier, we will support new clauses 8 and 9 in the name of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). New clause 8 would provide a means of compensating scheme members who, through no fault of their own, stand to lose out as a result of the Bill. The Bill rights a wrong for a very large number of people in public pension schemes but goes in the opposite direction for some, and we should not forget about them. The new clause does not commit the Government, or indeed the scheme employers, to any additional expenditure, but it would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer at least to recognise that this is an issue and to look at whether there are realistic and reasonable ways of resolving it.

New clause 9 would require the Government to review how the Bill operates in the real world—as opposed to the assessment, as with any Bill, before discussions on it began—with regard to equalities. Given how many substantial changes the Government have already had to make to the Bill, it is prudent to accept that, once it comes into force, it might have consequences that the Government have not foreseen, which the new clause would attempt to protect against.

New clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), is a different matter altogether, and the SNP is minded to oppose it. We have heard some of the arguments in favour of it—they are similar to comments made on Second Reading—which simply do not wash. I will not get into an argument now about the BDS movement. If the Government genuinely think that that organisation is a threat to peace and stability in the middle east or elsewhere, they could bring forward legislation to address it—they have had over two years of this Parliament to do so, and they still have time—but this is not the Bill for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I certainly cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I have made perfectly clear, how the British system works is that Ministers have the authority to take policy decisions, and Parliament is right to hold Ministers to account for that. Parliament has the ultimate right to decide what becomes law. If nobody else is allowed to discuss it, and councils are not allowed to express views in the interests of the people they are there to represent, the whole system starts to fall flat on its face.

It is as plain as the nose on my or anyone else’s face that decisions on foreign policy can easily have a disproportionate impact on residents in some parts of these islands. Certainly, decisions on defence policy can have a significantly greater impact on some places than others. Remember that councils are directly democratically elected by local people to represent their views. Are we suggesting that they should not be allowed to debate matters of foreign policy simply because they do not have the right to take the final decision? If that is what Government Members are saying, why is it that almost every Tory MP who pops up on their hindlegs at Prime Minister’s questions to ask a planted question invites the Prime Minister to interfere in local democratic decision making? We have had two examples today, with the right hon. Member for Newark expressing his views on possible decisions by councils that, with respect, are nothing to do with him, because they are not the council area he represents.

I do not know whether Wirral Council or Hertfordshire will take the right decision, but I am happy to trust the good people of the Wirral and Hertfordshire to sort out councillors who get it wrong too often. That is what local elections are about. I do not like to see the Government, having substantially stripped back the powers of local authorities, then deciding to give local authorities the power to take decisions they agree with, but taking away the power for local authorities to do things that might go in a different direction.

Among all this, we are losing sight of the vital fact that as a matter of law, the trustees of a pension fund are a completely different organisation and a completely different entity in most cases from the organisation whose current and former employees are members of that fund. My wife has for many years been a trustee of the Fife Council pension fund, as well as having clocked up nearly 30 years as a councillor. The decisions that the trustees of the pension fund make are completely different from the decisions many of the same people will take as members of Fife Council. Nobody believes that the decisions of the pension fund reflect the views of the council; the council is not allowed to try to whip pension trustees, for example.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Peter Grant]

I will give way once more, but I am aware of the time.

Towns Fund

Debate between Peter Grant and Robert Jenrick

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

Among the damning judgments issued last week by the Public Accounts Committee was that

“we are not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others. The justification offered by ministers…are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority… The Department has also not been open about the process it followed… This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process”.

That is just a selection of findings from one page of a 21-page report. I have seen the summary accounting officer assessment provided in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee, which most Members taking part in today’s session have not, and I do not think that summary exonerates Ministers in anything like the way the Secretary of State is claiming. Why will his Department not allow that summary to be published, so that hon. Members can do their job and decide for themselves?

[Robert Jenrick]

I think I have already answered that point: the accounting officer’s advice is not routinely published within Whitehall. That is a matter for the Department and the civil service more generally. However, it has been shared with the Public Accounts Committee, and I am pleased to see that at least one member of the Committee actually bothered to read it, unlike others present in the Chamber. It is a fair summary, and my permanent secretary has attested to that.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Debate between Peter Grant and Robert Jenrick

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

The point I am making is that there could be concerns about the maturity of the legal system of some countries with which we might want to enter into international agreements. The example given earlier was countries in southern Europe, but the last time I checked they were part of the European Union. If they are acting in breach of a treaty that has been signed up to by the EU, I would have thought that there would be recourse through the European courts. If there is not, perhaps that needs to be looked at. I fail to see why it is necessary to have a separate form of recourse for companies that want to sue sovereign democratic Parliaments and Governments, one that is not made available to citizens of the countries who have elected those Parliaments in the first place.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is making a decent point, but the UK is already in bilateral investment treaties with a range of other countries around the world that have mature democracies, and some of these treaties have ISDS arrangements. The EU, including the UK, has just signed up to one such treaty with South Korea. Is he suggesting that we withdraw from all those bilateral investment treaties around the world, including important ones such as the recent one with South Korea?

[Peter Grant]

I am not suggesting that at all. I suppose the question might be: if the ISDS has been so successful, why is it being scrapped and replaced by something else?

One final observation that I want to make is that although the Government clearly regard completion and ratification of TTIP as being a major selling point for staying within the EU—I believe the Foreign Secretary said as much before the European Scrutiny Committee—a sizeable body of public opinion in the UK takes the opposite view. I do not know how sizeable it is, but it is there. There are parts of the UK, including a lot of areas in Scotland, where people want to be part of the EU but will change that allegiance if TTIP goes ahead. That might be music to the ears of some Members, but the Government may be making a massive tactical mistake if they believe that support for TTIP will persuade more citizens to vote to remain in the EU. There is a serious danger that it will actually have the opposite impact. The tragic irony of it is that if TTIP is already done and dusted before the EU referendum, people will vote to leave the EU and then discover that they are still lumbered with TTIP for 20 years, because once we have signed up to it even our leaving the EU does not allow us to get out of it.

I make an appeal to Members, and this applies regardless of whether they have already decided in their own minds about the merits or otherwise of TTIP and whether they think it is a good or bad idea. Once we know the full details of what TTIP and its associated agreements are going to mean, surely we must have a proper and full debate in this place, and in the Parliaments of the rest of the EU, at least in order to give MEPs a clear steer as to how they should be exercising their vote in the binding decision that they will take at some point in the future.