Dave Robertson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 5 Jun 2025 · Emergency Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking to strengthen emergency preparedness.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this important debate. He and I discussed the matter in this very room quite recently, and I am proud to be here again to represent the people of Lichfield, Burntwood and, crucially, the farming villages of my constituency. The Groceries Code Adjudicator regulates supermarkets and other businesses to ensure fairness in our food supply, but it does not go far enough down the supply chain—I almost said “food chain,” but I am avoiding the pun. It regulates only a small number of businesses, about a dozen. While it tries to keep prices as low as reasonably possible and aims to ensure that food profits get shared fairly across the supply chain, it simply is not reaching the most important layer of the supply chain—the producers and farmers. In almost all cases, farming is a pretty weird yet fundamental part of the UK economy, as it is the part we need to keep the country fed. Despite its importance, the sector does not always follow the economic patterns we would expect. The general rule of thumb in any free market economy is that those taking greater risks should see a greater return. They should see the value when things work well, as it is on their shoulders when things do not work well in difficult times. However, that is not always how farming works in the UK. Farmers across the country are very much at risk of flooding, disease and drought. A huge number of potatoes are grown in my Lichfield constituency every year, and I know many farmers who were happy to see the heavens open a couple of weeks ago. Farming is a risky business. Factors well beyond a farmer’s control can have a profound impact on the yield from a particular field, on the quality of what is grown, or on a hundred other things that most people will never even think about. Usually that would mean bumper profits when things go well, to reflect the need for rain, sunshine or frost at the right time, but that is not how it is currently working in the UK. Most farms are simply not making enough money. I make it clear that I am not saying that we have had it too good for too long, and I am not arguing for higher food prices—we have just had a cost of living crisis, and I hope it is a very long time until we see another—but there is enough profit in our groceries system to make sure that everyone gets fair prices, a fair day’s pay and a fair day’s return. I am sure everyone in this room believes, as I do, in a free market economy that delivers fairness for everyone, but the free market is failing farming, food producers and our groceries system. It is therefore right that legislators should step in, and it is important for the GCA to take a more active role. It is important to farmers, and especially to dairy farmers on my patch—we need to look much more closely at dairy farming. The dairy farmers I speak to openly say that the very best contract they can reasonably expect for their milk is a “cost of production” contract, which all but guarantees that there can never be any profit in their farming business. Some salaries will be included in the costs, but no line for profit. The result is a perverse situation in which the processors to which the milk is sold—the customers for much of my farmers’ produce—demand to see the farmers’ financials and will then tell them what it costs to produce milk. That is the antithesis of how a free market should work. There can be no situation more perverse than that. This is really important to farmers in my constituency, who deserve a market that works in their interest; it is important to retailers, large and small, that want to do the right thing by their customers; it is important to my constituents who work in farming communities; and it is important to people living in more urban areas of my constituency, as they are also very interested in making sure that people get a fair shot in a fair economy. We need the GCA to stand up and play its role in making sure that we have a fair system for everyone.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. We do not need the Government to try to run everything. We need a free market, but one that is regulated properly to deliver for producers and consumers—to deliver for everybody.

• 21 May 2025 · Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Is the hon. Member aware of the ways in which the structure of the mobile tower market in the UK is holding back investment in 5G? Some of the regulations introduced by the previous Government are leading to a concentrated market that is not investing quickly enough in more towers and the better signal that we need to reach properties that otherwise would need a satellite connection, particularly in rural constituencies like hers, or mine in Lichfield.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I will add one more to that list of excellent organisations supporting the programme, and that is the National Memorial Arboretum in Alrewas. It is really important that we celebrate VE Day and VJ Day in Staffordshire, where Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire, was born—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee)—and where RAF Lichfield, the busiest airfield in Staffordshire during the second world war, was sited, just down the road from where we will be celebrating in Alrewas.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way—it is unusual for me to make two interventions in the same debate. Reflecting on my family’s experience of the second world war, my taid—my maternal grandfather, who was Welsh—fought in the war, but his war did not end in 1945. He did not come home until 1947, because he was part of the peacekeeping missions in both Italy and Greece. Does the shadow Minister agree that when we look at the situation in Ukraine, it is important that we remember Britain’s role not just in winning the second world war, but in winning the peace, and how important that will be in the future?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Coalfields Regeneration Trust · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend from the great county of Staffordshire. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust does great work in my constituency, working alongside some charities in Chasetown to employ a counsellor to support people back into work. Does he agree that much of the work that we need to do on regeneration is not about buildings, but about the people who work in those buildings? It is about respecting the contributions that those communities have made and making sure that they have the support they need to be able to contribute in the future.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Coalfields Regeneration Trust · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Nether Stowe school in my constituency—my old school—has just completed a consultation on closing its sixth-form provision. This has caused a huge amount of stress for kids who are prepping for their GCSEs. They do not know where they will be able to do their A-levels. The other school sixth forms in Lichfield at Friary and King Edward are already heavily oversubscribed, so there is a risk that we will lack academic places for people to do A-levels when they reach 16. A month ago, I asked Conservative-controlled Staffordshire county council to share its planning for how many sixth-form and academic places we need in Lichfield. It has completely failed to provide that information. I need to know that there is a plan, so that everybody who reaches the age of 16 can take courses that are appropriate for them. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the relevant Minister urgently to discuss post-16 provision in Lichfield?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Access to Sport: PE in Schools · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham)—my right good friend—for securing the debate. It has been great to hear so many hon. Members talking about the importance of sport in our schools. I had a slightly different experience from some of my colleagues with PE in school, because I loved it; I was right up for it. I had the pleasure of playing for my school’s cricket team—once. I had the pleasure of playing for my school’s football team—once. I was a little bit better at basketball, so I got to play that twice. It turns out that there is a limit on how far enthusiasm will get you. Rugby union was my sport in school, and at the risk of the northerners’ ire, I will say that rugby union is the correct code. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] That has not gone down well. We only ever had three fixtures when I was at school, but I absolutely loved it. I also loved going to PE lessons. My background is really academic, but I used to love that break in the school day when we got to go out and do something slightly different. It is important to recognise that. Following that, I went off to university, became a teacher and taught for almost 10 years. I hope to carry that background with me during my time in this place. We have heard a lot about the health benefits of physical activity, and I absolutely agree with those points. But I have also seen some of the transferable skills that kids I taught picked up from their PE lessons and how that can contribute to a well-rounded education. I taught physics, astronomy and a little bit of maths, mostly at key stages 4 and 5—for older secondary pupils—so my background is in an academic part of the school, but I support the debate, because, on top of all that, I ran a Friday night sports club at my school where kids could come along and play ultimate frisbee: the game I found at university where the ceiling on where enthusiasm gets you is slightly higher. In schools, too often there is a temptation to play subjects off: some are academic and some are not; some are more important and some are not. Those are binaries that I do not recognise—not personally, not from my experience and not from my experience in the classroom. As much as I support great science provision and great maths teaching, subjects such as music, art, drama and particularly PE are hugely important to every single individual in a school—not just to the kids who will go off to university or the kids who have a more vocational route, but to every single kid, because of the soft skills they pick up, such as teamwork, resilience and just being able to react to anything outside their control. Anybody who has ever tried to chase an egg around a rugby field will know: it is bouncing, you have no idea where you are going and you have to think on your feet, often while being chased by 18 stone of very rare meat. Sport pushes you out of your comfort zone to use skills that we all rely on day in, day out. In fact, I know that the skills I use in my role here come much more from some of the sport I have experienced and some of the soft skills I have developed than my university education, which I paid a lot more for. Sport in school is also an amazing way to build a community. I see that in my constituency. A couple of weeks ago, I was at the rugby watching Lichfield play Tamworth and it was really great to see some of the old boys and the gentle rivalry between the guys who went to Friary 20, 30 or 40 years ago and the guys who went to King Ed’s 30 or 40 years ago, while I was sitting in the corner from Nether Stowe. The community that they have built around there is a community of rugby players, but within that there is a gentle rivalry and it comes from that school experience. It is hard to replicate—although we also see it up the road in Chasetown football club, which is called the Scholars because it was set up by pupils from Chase Terrace high school. There are examples in everybody’s constituencies. It is really important that we keep school and PE at the heart of schools, keep PE in the classroom and keep the classroom on the field sometimes.

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, because this is an investment in early years, which is an investment in the future of our communities. In my constituency, there is an investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds at Springhill primary academy in Burntwood, Boney Hay primary academy in Burntwood and St Stephen’s primary in Fradley. These schools do amazing work in supporting the next generation, and this money will be used to renovate facilities, give children a better environment in which to start their learning, expand the number of places and help provide the 30 hours of free childcare that working parents so desperately need. Can I put on record my thanks to these schools, and can I ask if the Secretary of State will join me in visiting schools and celebrating the work they do?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in a debate with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I extend my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) for securing this debate on such an important issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell), who spoke so clearly about the subject. We cannot talk about the use and abhorrent misuse of non-disclosure agreements without mentioning the crimes of Mohammed al-Fayed. He was a predator who sexually assaulted and harassed hundreds of female employees over decades. I put on the record my thanks to my constituent Keaton Stone, who has been working with a network of Fayed survivors and has become a tireless campaigner for their stories to be heard. He played a part in the making of a BBC documentary exposé last year, which quite frankly horrified the nation with the scale of what had been going on. He has done a lot to make sure we know just how big the scandal was. I note that a new documentary shining a light on one of the many people who enabled al-Fayed will air on Channel 4, possibly this week. I say that al-Fayed preyed on hundreds of women, but we do not actually know the true figure. We know that 400 women have come forward, but we do not know how many more have been unable to speak out for years—for decades. That is in large part because of al-Fayed’s intimidation tactics, including the coercive use of non-disclosure agreements. Keaton tells me that he still speaks to women who fear going public because of an NDA. Through non-disclosure agreements, our legal system enabled Mohammed al-Fayed. Lawyers signed those documents week after week, month after month, year after year, and allowed that man to prey on hundreds of women. They were not required by any system to raise the alarm; indeed, they were unable to raise the alarm because of client privilege and confidentiality. That is utterly and unspeakably wrong. Our legal system must begin to protect victims and survivors so that non-disclosure agreements cannot be used to ruin lives in that way again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, non-disclosure agreements are often attached to settlement agreements. In my many years working for a trade union, I negotiated a number of settlement agreements, and they invariably included the statement that she mentioned: “You cannot mention this.” I worked with teachers, and it is unusual for them to be able to share some kind of secret that will put their school out of business, but the settlement agreements are boilerplate and it is standard practice for that statement to go in them. Settlement agreements are an important piece of our employment law framework, but we must not have this situation where non-disclosure agreements are attached to them by default, preventing things from being aired. That is particularly true in the case of some of the things we have heard about today, such as sexual harassment—although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley that it is about not just sexual harassment, but discrimination and other things. I was going to touch on the Victims and Prisoners Act, but my right hon. Friend mentioned that, so I will conclude by asking the Minister: when can we expect to go further and faster on this? We must have a legal system that protects low-paid workers, in particular, as well as women and those who are at risk of abuse.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Trail Hunting · Hansard source

  More

  Meur ras th’am keren—that is my very best Cornish, and I will not try to repeat it unless I have time to practise. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. To go back to his point about the difference between drag hunting and trail hunting, a lot of the negative things that he describes would not come from drag hunts, which have predetermined routes and use a different type of scent. For the avoidance of doubt for anybody listening at home, particularly those in the hunting community who may be concerned, might we just reconfirm that this is about trail hunting, not drag hunting?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  It is always sunny in Staffordshire!

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to participate in the debate with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing it. I rise to celebrate the impact of the Royal British Legion in my constituency, which is primarily through the National Memorial Arboretum. It is a genuinely wonderful place with 150 acres of woodland and over 420 memorials. As I walk around this place, I speak to so many people who say that they have been meaning to visit some day. I cannot stress how much I advise people to make “some day” today.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Royal British Legion · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Royal British Legion does so much through its branches and clubs. I am privileged to have a number of branches and two clubs in my constituency, and I will support them for as long as I can. I will return to the National Memorial Arboretum, which is the country’s centre of remembrance. It is a wonderful place, and I repeat that people should make “some day” today and get up there if possible. I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to show some of my fellow MPs around the site. Every time I go, it reminds me that remembrance is not just for November. It is so much more than wearing our poppies. It is about celebrating and reflecting on the service and sacrifice of so many who have helped to make our country what it is today. Last week, I also hosted an event in Parliament with the UK Police Memorial Trust. The arboretum not only celebrates our armed services, but is a home to memorials to our emergency service workers, and indeed anybody who has given that service and sacrifice. The police memorial, which opened almost four years ago, pays tribute to officers who have laid down their lives keeping their communities safe. The trust has just launched a new education programme. I invite all Members to flag that to their schools, as I have, because remembrance is not just for that one month. It is for all year round, and it should be for anybody who has given that service and sacrifice. Finally, we are about to come to the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory over Japan. I particularly thank the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for supporting the Royal British Legion in leading services at the arboretum to mark those dates. Britain’s victory in the second world war secured peace on our shores, but in an ever-more dangerous world, we should never take peace for granted. In ever-more dangerous times, we have much to learn from our second world war veterans. I would be delighted to join them to mark VJ Day at the National Memorial Arboretum. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to confirm which Minister will be joining us for the day.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Off-road Bikes · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps her Department is taking to tackle the antisocial use of off-road bikes.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Off-road Bikes · Hansard source

  More

  People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding villages in my constituency—and, I am sure, across the country—are sick and tired of off-road bikes being used inappropriately, antisocially and dangerously on our streets. The worst example I have seen was somebody doing a wheelie on a quad bike at 40 mph on Eastern Avenue in Lichfield. I reported that to the police and they are following it up as best they can, but they tell me that they need the new powers in the Bill. Can the Secretary of State reassure me, my constituents and the rest of the country that this Government will continue to crack down on this problem and will not rest until our streets are safe for all road users?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for coming along today and contributing. This is obviously a hot-button issue across the country, and we should value having so many contributions from Members representing a wide range of constituencies, parts of the country and political persuasions. I thank all Members for the way the debate has been undertaken. There is always a risk on highly charged issues such as this that we lose the debate a bit and, on both sides, descend into behaviours that do not befit the best history of the House, but that is not where this debate went. This is a complex topic, and given that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) espoused the benefits of migration and the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) discussed the issues that drive people’s concerns about immigration, we can see that Members from both sides of the House have made this a considered debate. I hope that every single one of the petitioners looks at it with interest and sees that everybody has put a lot of time and thought into it. We all want to see some movement, if not to the same place, then in the same direction—there is widespread agreement on the need to deal with the crisis in the channel. We should applaud that, although we will have to wait and see quite how much of that makes it on to the front pages of the Daily Mail , the Express or The Guardian tomorrow. I again want to address the petitioners. We are here on their behalf, and I really hope they are listening, watching and reading Hansard , and are aware of how seriously all parties take this issue, even if we do not agree with the outcomes suggested in the petition. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 700824 relating to suspending legal and illegal migration.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 700824 relating to suspending legal and illegal migration. Before I begin my remarks, may I say what a pleasure it will be to serve with you in the Chair Dr Huq? This is a topic of real importance, which matters to an awful lot of people across Britain, but too often politicians fail to talk about it with the seriousness and depth it deserves. Views on immigration have become increasingly polarised in this country, and it is a sad fact that, at the close of today’s debate, I will receive hate mail, as I am sure many other Members around the Chamber will. Some will be from people who think that, because I am willing to talk about the rapid rise of immigration, I am somehow a racist, but some will come from people who think I am the worst example of “woke thinking”—whatever that is—and a soft touch who does not care about the country’s national security. Neither of those positions is right. Actually, when I talk to people face to face—real-life people who are not in politics—very few hold either of those essentially polarised opinions. One thing I am really hoping for from today’s debate is that we can bridge that gap and start to talk frankly and fairly about this issue. Everybody in this room wants to make progress on it, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will bear that in mind and that we can have a positive and open discussion—a grown-up debate—which is what this country deserves. When thinking about immigration, two things are clear to me. The first is the role that migrants have played, going back centuries, in making this country what it is today—the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans, the Flemings, the Irish, the Windrush generation, people from across the Commonwealth and countless others. It would be remiss of me not to go through that list and make particular mention of the contribution of the millions from across the Commonwealth, and further afield, who fought shoulder to shoulder with our soldiers in both the world wars in the last century—and not only that, but who helped win the peace afterwards. The second thing we need to do, though, is to respond to that by saying that immigration has grown rapidly in Britain in recent years. In the years since the covid-19 pandemic, it has spiked dramatically, and I am sure it is clear to all of us in the Chamber—and certainly to the 219,000 people who signed the petition—that that is a worry for a lot of people. Voters consistently tell pollsters that immigration is one of the biggest issues we face, and the most recent survey by YouGov found that 69% of people think it has been too high over the past decade. I think that the worry that migration figures have grown too quickly is what underpins the petition. When I mentioned that I was going to lead this debate, I spoke to somebody back home, and their view was that, because the petition starts with the, “Close the borders!”, I should just try to ridicule somebody. That is absolutely the wrong approach in this situation. When we look into the detail of the petition—the explanation for it and what the petitioner has written—actually, the real drive here is not trade or imports; it is very much immigration, and I really do not want to try to patronise anybody by picking on a particular point and making ridiculous comments about it. Unfortunately, it has been a little more difficult than usual to prepare my introduction. When I have introduced petitions debates before, it has been my common practice that one of the first people I speak to is the petitioner themselves. It has been really valuable to speak to that person face to face, or via Zoom, to really see where they are coming from and, hopefully, build the speech around that. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not been able to respond to any of the requests for a meeting, so I have not been able to have that face-to-face discussion. However, I am going to do the very best I can to do justice to their petition and to talk about it in as much detail as possible. The petition calls for a temporary halt to all immigration, both illegal and legal, for five years. That word “temporary” is important. The petitioner writes that “our country is facing serious challenges both from legal and illegal migration”, and argues that strong action is needed. That speaks to a sense that we have reached a moment of crisis. The petitioner is not saying “never again” or dismissing the contribution that migrants make to our society, but they are worried about where we are right now. To go back to my initial point about having a grown-up debate, it is important that we recognise that the petitioner is not saying, “No people who weren’t born here”; this is a response to the situation as they see it. So where exactly are we? Since I have the opportunity to present this debate, let me present some facts to go around it. Since 2021, immigration to Britain has risen to unprecedented levels. In the 12 months to June 2024, net migration—the total number of people moving here, take away the total number of people who have left—was well in excess of three quarters of a million people. That is down on the previous year, but it is still vastly higher than the pre-pandemic estimate, which would have been closer to one quarter of a million. Within the 1.2 million people moving to the UK, 5% were Brits who were living elsewhere and who came home. I do not think in a million years that the petitioner would say that people who were born in the UK did not have a right to come back—I do not think that that is the point of view the petitioner is coming from—but the numbers do count them as people who have immigrated to the UK, because it is an inward flow. Another 10% of those who came were from the European Union, plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, although more people from those countries actually left Britain than arrived here. The vast majority, about 1 million people, were non-EU nationals. Almost half, about 400,000, came here to work; around 375,000 were students and roughly 150,000 were asylum seekers or people coming through specific humanitarian schemes—the Ukrainian and Hong Kong nationals schemes are great examples there, and I am sure there is widespread consensus about the importance of maintaining those safe and legal routes. Most of the remaining 100,000 or so people came for family reasons, and again I think most people would support people’s right to live a proper family life. The petition talks about both legal and illegal immigration. The vast majority of people arriving in this country do so through standard legal routes, with a work permit, a student visa or some other type of permission. However, we all know that a large number of people come to the country through what the Government call “irregular routes”, most of them by crossing the English channel in small boats. Of those people, around 94% go on to claim asylum and around 70% are successful, which is a similar proportion to those arriving through other routes. In the year to September 2024, just under 30,000 people arrived in small boats; that figure is down by a third from a peak of more than 45,000 in 2022, but still much higher than we saw before that. In fact, it is 100 times—not 100%, but 100 times—higher than it was in 2018. However we look at it, that is a really bad thing. The English channel may only be 20 miles across at its narrowest point, but in boats such as those we have seen people using to try to cross it, journeys can be extremely dangerous. It is one of the busiest shipping lanes on the planet, and the crossing is very dangerous. By October last year, 2024 had already become the deadliest year on record for channel crossings: 69 people had died trying to reach our country. Those are lives that should never have been lost. The people who profit from those journeys are the organised criminal gangs that are prepared to put profit in the way of people’s safety. Given that background, it is important that we debate the petition in full, in detail and openly. As part of the work behind writing this opening speech, I spoke to a wide range of stakeholders, who said that suspending migration would be possible as a policy choice, but that it would have impacts. That is also worth saying: it is potentially doable, but as legislators we have to go one step further and talk about what effect it would have. Before I carry on, I thank everyone who shared their time and knowledge to help to make this as informed and useful a debate as possible: the Centre for Policy Studies, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. When we talk about the effects that introducing this policy might have, let us start with work. What would it mean for jobs and our economy to stop that immigration completely, even for just five years? Polling suggests that, right now, the only factor that worries Brits more than immigration is the economy, for obvious reasons. Therefore, thinking about the impact of immigration on jobs is a huge part of where the debate should be going. One of the big worries voters have is that migrants take jobs that could otherwise be done by Brits, driving down wages in our economy. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that there is no fixed number of jobs in Britain and that, because we have the advantages of living in a liberal, free market economy, the number of jobs rises in good times, when people have money to spend, and in bad times—

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I note the hon. Member’s comments about how things worked in the ’80s and ’90s. For most of that time I was not very old, but to his point about asylum success rates being different then and now, in both of those decades the UK was subject to the European Court of Human Rights, so does he agree that if there has been a change, it is probably not because of the Court?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to pick up on a couple of the right hon. Member’s points, but the major thrust of what he was saying was about dependants who do not bring any economic value. However, particularly if we are talking about dependants who are children, we have to consider the future economic value of having potentially amazing people coming to this country, with potentially amazing skills, who can deliver wonderful things for our country. My wider point, on what migration means for the job market, is one that is worth discussing. Migrants do not take jobs from a fixed pool. The simple fact is that, when people migrate to the UK, they spend money. A rise in population can mean more cash in the economy and more money for businesses, allowing them to expand and create more jobs for those who have come to the UK. However, the reality is that the impact that migration has on the economy is quite small. Overall, migrants make our GDP bigger—that is a fact—but not by a vast amount. Migration is not a silver bullet to create more jobs, higher wages and boom times, which is pretty unsurprising if we think about it: if immigration did do all that, I do not think that as many people would be as worried about it as they are. The other thing that comes up when we talk to people about this issue is wages. Although migration may have an impact on GDP, they are interested in what it does to the wages that people can earn? For the most part, looking across the economy as a whole, all the measurements say that the answer is very little. The impact is difficult to measure—it is such a small value that it is difficult to put a number on—but experts find that wages are not substantially higher or lower because of migrants. Most of us know, however, that people’s understanding of the economy is not about a number written on a spreadsheet somewhere that an economist is looking at; it is about, “Do I have a job?”, “Does it pay well?”, and, “Do I have enough to get by?” The one place where immigration does have an impact is on the lowest-paid workers. For those people, it has an admittedly small impact, but it does depress pay ever so slightly. That is very easy for us to say, but if people are struggling to make ends meet anyway, any impact on their wages in the wrong direction is a big deal. Beyond that, if we are to talk about immigration, jobs and the economy, we have to talk about what sectors of the economy rely on migrants. Many sectors and lots of industries in our economy struggle to fill jobs with British workers. The ones that I would single out, though, are seasonal agricultural work, such as fruit picking, and care work. Those are two sectors where migrants make up a big share of the workforce. To look at care specifically, in England, which is where I will start, carers are often paid less than they could get working in a warehouse for one of the large internet companies—I will not name the one that begins with an A—as a delivery driver or in the local supermarket. That can make care work unattractive to people. People who want to be carers do it not only for the pay at the end of the month, but because they enjoy looking after people who need their support and help—older, disabled or other vulnerable people. As a result, almost one in five carers in the UK is a migrant worker and, for them, the wages are better than they might get at home. It is interesting to compare that to Scotland and Northern Ireland, where there are far fewer migrant carers. That is because wages for carers are higher in those areas, so they are attracting more British workers and there is less of a drive to employ migrant workers. The Migration Advisory Committee reckons that raising the wages of carers by £1 an hour would make the job much more attractive to English workers, beating out those other jobs that currently pay more. That is where we can talk about this being a policy choice. It is down to any Government to make these policy choices. They could choose to do the investment—it would be about £2 billion a year—that would enable that to happen, but it would potentially leave unfilled jobs in other key sectors, or leave other areas unable to find the labour they needed. I have a few points to make before I shut up and let other people contribute. I think it is important that we talk about public services. Immigration will have an effect on them. Everybody recognises this; it makes an obvious difference, with more people registering for doctors and dentists, needing hospital treatment, sending their children to school, and using other public services. However, it also means more people paying tax to pay for those things, so it is not quite a “good or bad” argument; it is one that we have to have in the round. If we look at the figures, we see that some migrants, particularly those highly paid migrants mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), tend to pay more in tax than they take out by using those services. However, in other areas the impact is not offset in quite the same way, and having more people just makes things harder. Housing is the most obvious example. We know that we have a housing crisis in the country; there is broad political consensus about that. Rents are rising, and people are paying eye-watering sums to own a house. It is becoming much harder to get out of the private rental sector and on to the housing ladder. Because migration increases our population, it means more competition for homes and potentially even higher prices. The irony is that, in the short term, we need skilled construction workers to come here to start building the homes, because we have a gap in those skills in Britain, but if the population rises faster than we can build housing, it will exacerbate the crisis. Earlier I spoke about the number of people coming to live in the UK on student visas, and I think it is important that I go into a bit more detail on that now. Some of us, and some people I have spoken to, may not consider international students to be migrants, but that is how they appear in the numbers, which show that almost a third of the migrants to this country last year came here to study. The international education strategy set by the previous Government aimed to increase the number of international students studying in the UK to 600,000 by 2030. Those students pay higher fees, which helps to pay for the world-class research universities that we have in the UK—one of the things that I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members are very proud to support. International students make up roughly a quarter of all students in British universities—up from closer to 10% all those years ago when I was a student. At some of our universities, though, the share is much higher. International students make up more than half the total at Imperial College London, University College London, BPP University, Coventry University and the Universities of Edinburgh and Southampton. The number of international students is already starting to fall, because they are no longer allowed to bring dependants with them or switch to a work visa before the end of their course. Applications were down by almost a third last year, which means we have another difficult choice to make: either raise the fees that British students pay to help to balance the books, or potentially remove funding from the university sector, which is so important to the economy and to our soft power. Cardiff University has already announced plans to cut 400 jobs and axe courses because of fewer international student applications, so this is already starting to have an effect. Fewer international students could result in some institutions going under. The final point that I want to make is about culture. This is a much more difficult issue to tie down, but a lot of voters talk to us about the culture that people bring with them, and the potential impact of high levels of immigration on British culture and the kind of country that Britain is. I think all of us know that there are lots of versions of Britishness and that trying to tie down a definition of that word would take longer than the three hours we have for the debate today. There are people in this country who are totally chalk and cheese, whom we love and we loathe. There are different groups—those who really identify with others and those who really do not. Again, we could spend a long time talking about that idea on its own. None the less, at the same time there is a shared sense of what it means to be British. That is not just about where somebody was born, or the colour of a passport; it is something much more fundamental—something that people share. It is fuzzy and hard to define, but we do know it. For lots of people in this country, Britishness is not the only part of who they are, whether they are a third-generation immigrant or somebody newly arrived here. It is not a zero-sum game, where people must only be British and nothing else. It is perfectly legitimate for people to feel British-American, British-Canadian, British-Nigerian, British-Indian or British-Pakistani. Dual nationality and the variety of approaches that people have brought to the country have resulted in amazing developments in the last centuries. That is something that a lot of us want to celebrate, but while a lot of people see that the vibrancy, the new cultural ideas, the new foods and music and the different businesses on the high street are great, there are some who feel hesitant and that things are moving too fast for them. I believe that when we get to know people who seem a bit different, we tend to find that we have a lot more in common with them than we first thought. Breaking down barriers and getting to know our neighbours can result in people feeling closer, with a stronger sense of community, but if that work is not done and people feel unable to break down the barriers, they may feel more isolated, distant and nervous, and that their community is changing in ways that they did not agree to and cannot control. I feel the need to say that a minority—and it is a minority—of people in this country have views on race and immigration that we should all condemn. There are, unfortunately, some people who will try to use debates like this to further their own poisonous ends. There are also in this space many people who feel nervous discussing such matters—nervous about being dismissed as being racist, even though they are not coming from a place they consider to be racist. That is why I return to my initial point: let us have a grown-up discussion, talk about this in the round and recognise that not everybody starts from the same place. Let us also recognise that if we want to get this right—and people do want to get this right—we will have to build consensus, build bridges and work with everybody in our community, whether that is the settled population, different parts of the settled population, migrants, expats or anyone else. There is clearly a mood in the country that immigration is too high. That tells us something about how Brits feel about our country. It speaks to everything that the UK has to offer that so many people want to make their lives here and share in our Great British values, but it is hard for some people to feel proud and optimistic about that when they look around and see shut shops, when jobs in their town, city or village do not pay well despite long hours, when they cannot see a doctor or a dentist, and when they cannot afford to pay their rent or even dream of buying a house. Fixing those problems is hard and complicated. Ending immigration is a policy choice the Government could choose to make, but it will not be a silver bullet that will fix all those issues. Any Government who made that decision would have to do so with full knowledge of the potential impacts, some currently unseen. This petition, more than anything, demonstrates the fear about where we are right now. Change is needed. People are really eager to see Members like us, who have the opportunity to speak about this subject, talk about it in a way that, hopefully, moves the country forward.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that I am at the front of this particular queue, Mr Speaker. Right across the country we have amazing, cutting-edge businesses, such as Great Wave AI, a start-up in my constituency that is already helping the Government to take advantage of AI. It wants to grow faster and do more work with Government Departments. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that small British start-ups can play their part in the AI revolution in government, not just mega companies such as Meta, Microsoft and Google?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps he is taking to support small and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  It is no surprise to me that I am the third MP from Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent to take part today, because in Staffordshire we now have 1,350 open cases waiting to be heard by Crown courts. That figure more than doubled over the last five years of Conservative mismanagement, and it is the highest number since records began. I spoke to the police commander in Lichfield on Monday, and one of his major concerns is that delays in justice being seen to be done in courts is making harder his job of building the relationships he needs with our community. The worst cases he has raised with me include serious sexual assault and rape cases that have been delayed for almost five years. What steps will the Secretary of State be taking to make sure that these additional extra sitting days are targeted at the most serious offenders?