---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said about the enormous help that we received from the staff who served our committee so well in the two inquiries. I also pay tribute to him for the way in which he took the chair at our meetings and steered us through with a combination of firmness and good humour to the conclusions which are before us today. In May 2004, 10 countries joined the EU. We supported the Government’s policy of admitting migrants for the purposes of work from the 10 countries, in particular the eight former communist countries. According to figures we received, 232,000 people came to Britain from those eight countries. Many of them were already in the UK before the date—we estimate some 30 per cent Poles made up the largest number, followed by Lithuanians. It is no surprise that those two countries have the highest unemployment rates among the eight. The figures for those coming to Britain were greater because most other EU countries said no to them. Our employment rate at the time—that is, about a year ago—was 4.6 per cent, which was about half that of France and Germany, so there were attractions for people coming to seek work in Britain. I am delighted that some of the other EU countries have now opened their doors—Finland, Greece, Spain and Portugal—and I hope that the others will follow. It is very clear from the work of the committee that the 230,000 or so people who came to Britain were of enormous benefit to the British economy. They contributed to our GDP; they contributed to filling vacancies in the job market; and virtually none has claimed social security benefits. Indeed, a condition of their coming to work here greatly limited the benefits that they could claim. It is unlikely that the movement from those countries to Britain will continue at the earlier levels as unemployment falls and the economies improve in the new countries. Romania and Bulgaria will, I hope, join the EU next January—if not then, they will do so a year later. I hope that our Government will also extend an open door to those two countries so that their nationals can come here for work, and I very much hope that our EU partners will follow suit. Perhaps I may now turn to the second report on proposals for a common EU returns policy on what are called illegal immigrants. I am not happy about the word ““illegal””, but that is part of the Brussels terminology. Any policy that is to be fair to migrants and asylum seekers also has to deal with those who have arrived here and did not qualify to stay. As regards asylum seekers, I believe firmly that the integrity of the 1951 convention on refugees must mean that those who have not been able to make a successful claim should not be able to stay—otherwise the whole policy is undermined—provided that there have been fair and proper procedures for asylum determination with rights of appeal against an adverse decision. Removing people is always a difficult and painful process for a liberal democracy, and I want to reflect on some of the findings in our report. The Commission proposals should to my mind have been a way of raising standards throughout the EU. The noble Lord said that in this they have sometimes failed. Proposals that are a compromise between the practices of the various member states allow the best to lower their standards. It was notable that in many respects British practice was better than that in some EU countries. Clearly, the policy will work best and humanely if voluntary returns are encouraged. Four weeks’ detention is probably too short a period—and it might be preferable not to have a time limit at all—but six months’ detention is surely too long and will simply encourage some countries to lengthen their detention periods. Let me now turn to the question of detention and our visit to Yarl’s Wood. We were not able to look at the detention policies of other EU countries, but the lessons we learnt at Yarl’s Wood would surely have a wider application than simply to this country itself. Physically, the conditions were reasonably good. What we saw included a well equipped kindergarten, IT facilities and a gym. The kindergarten in particular had a pleasant, bright atmosphere, with children who seemed to be happy and caring teachers and helpers. In fact, I would like to pay tribute to the staff at Yarl’s Wood who seemed altogether to be very dedicated and caring. But, unfortunately, there is another side to Yarl’s Wood. Coming in, there were some formidable bars at the entrance giving a sense of imprisonment. There was a yard with some play equipment for children, but as it was raining there were no children there. However, the back of the yard had a high and bleak wall which totally dominated the scene. And even without the wall and the bars at the entrance there was a sense of the many locked doors throughout the premises. We had a chance to talk to some of those being held there. Let me reflect a little on what they said. The older children and the adults—I except the very young children—had a sense of complete bewilderment and did not know what was to happen to them or, indeed, when. They were anxious to hear from their lawyers. That sense of bewilderment was a pretty awful reflection on the state they were in. The conditions under which they had first been detained gave me and others a great deal of cause for concern. We were told that at dawn there would be a swoop on their home and that they would be taken away without even enough time to put their belongings together. There was one example of a family from, I believe, Pakistan, with three teenaged children. They were preparing to go to school or to college when the immigration police, or whatever the authorities were, called on them and they were taken away. The family were very passionate about cricket. The younger boy was on the Warwickshire under-14 team and the older boy was also a keen cricketer. They put their savings into buying cricketing equipment, and they did not even have time to get that together. They were in absolute despair. I asked them whether they were keeping fit in the gym. They said that no, they had lost interest. Lastly, let me turn to the question of whether there is any need to lock up families with children at all. The report does not quite go so far as to say that, but I shall go a little further than the words of the report. I think that in the case of families with children the risk of absconding is surely small and that the risk to the rest of the community must be virtually negligible. Perhaps a transfer to a home or hostel near the airport of departure would be appropriate, but without the need to lock them up. I repeat: locking up children seems to me to be wrong. I hope that one by-product of the committee’s inquiry will be to make the Government think again about this policy of locking up families with children.