---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, in this pre-dinner hour, I cannot resist the provocations of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his Jonsonian aspersions on Scottish cuisine. I commend to him the virtues of cullen skink and cocky leeky—two perfectly delectable soups. But, in so many other matters, I agreed with everything he said. We have recently witnessed mass demonstrations by immigrants in the United States of America, protesting against threats of criminal prosecution against them and demanding the right of US citizenship. Most commentators have observed that the contribution of illegal immigrants to the United States’ economy—it is estimated that there are some 12 million—has been very positive, and that they have contributed significantly to competitiveness of the United States. Western Europeans have been rather less certain that economic migration benefits their domestic economies. But in the late 1990s, the rate of net migration per 1,000 inhabitants in the old European Union overtook the United States for the first time. It is clear that on both sides of the Atlantic there is a need to manage the migration process to ease the integration of migrants. This debate gives us a welcome opportunity to consider ways in which that process can be assisted. I commend the work done by the sub-committee under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. That report makes three broad points with which I find myself in agreement. The first is to reaffirm these economic benefits to Britain and our partners of economic migration. In particular, we are reminded that immigrants contribute considerably more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Immigrants may help to compensate for the decline and ageing of Europe’s indigenous population and they boost innovation and growth. It is a matter of regret that the accession countries—the A8—which are providers of internal European migration at this time, are still playing out long transitional periods before they can enjoy the right to work across the European Union because a number of the larger countries do not share the United Kingdom’s perception of the advantages from economic migration. Having said that, it is proper to acknowledge that Germany, in particular, has been host to very substantial numbers of immigrant workers and to note that of the 27 million Turks who went to Germany in the 1960s 25 million returned to Turkey. The second committee finding which seems incontrovertible is that the European Union can ameliorate the process of adjustment, although we are warned that there is a need for any common policy to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the national and regional variations of economic circumstances. But, having broadly accepted the views of the Government that national economic consideration should remain the primary determinant of the level of economic immigration, the committee strongly criticises the Government for their partial disengagement from European Union immigration and asylum policy. It is right to criticise the Government’s opt out on immigration policy, which would not, in the cases cited in the report, contrary to the Government’s assertion, affect their borders policy, which is covered by a quite separate opt out. The committee points to Britain’s exclusion from useful developments on the External Borders Management Agency (FRONTEX) and the measures relating to the inclusion of biometric identifiers in travel documents. It is understandable that the Government want to be ““out”” and ““in”” at the same time, which is very human. But it is unwelcome to our partners, which is equally understandable. If economic migration continues to be managed by national governments, they would do well at least to avoid the distortion of competition by widely different standards of protection for migrant workers. It would be sensible to seek agreement on the guiding principles which should be applied. The third broad principle acknowledged by the report with which I am in agreement is the desirability of offering parity of treatment to legal immigrants and to long resident third country nationals. It is in that sphere that the committee offers the sharpest criticism of government policy. Not only are the Government evidently unwilling to ratify the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers, they are not apparently even willing to commission research into the likely costs and consequences of doing so. That seems stubborn and ostrich-like. Nor are the Government ready to reconsider the case for acceding to the Council of Europe convention on migrant workers, we are told. Finally, the Government apparently are not willing to seek to strengthen the rights of the United Kingdom’s economic migrants by opting into the family reunification directive and the long-term residents directive enabling those United Kingdom migrants to enjoy equality with economic migrants in the rest of the European Union. That is not good enough. The committee report describes the rights secured by these two European Union directives as,"““critically important to ensuring mobility and equality of migrants in the European Union””." I agree with that. The Government’s reply to the recommendations is that they do not wish to be seriously out of line with our European partners on these matters, and it is therefore reasonable and helpful to probe a little what the Government’s attitude is and how they hope to stay in alignment. In her response to the debate, perhaps the Minister will explain what actions by our partners in respect of these two directives would induce the Government to accept them. Since the committee published its report in November, a point not alluded to so far in the debate, the Commission has produced its policy plan on legal migration, with its staging posts. Is the Minister in a position to tell us how the Government seek to work with the Commission to take forward the new proposals published at the end of last year? In particular, can the Minister indicate whether the Government accept the objectives of the proposed general framework directives whose principal purpose is to guarantee a common framework of rights to all third country nationals in legal employment and already admitted to a member state, but not yet entitled to long-term residence status?