---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who so ably chaired our work and introduced this important debate with great clarity, said that one of our main conclusions was that economic migration is important to the economy of member states and, in particular, to the UK. I totally agree with that and, as a descendent of economic migrants who came here some 1,200 years ago, I would only add that I think my ancestors’ arrival here was of extreme benefit to the country. The Government’s response to the report on economic migration is generally positive. This perhaps is because on the main themes of the report, our views are in harmony. What was less positive—in fact, almost entirely negative—was the reaction of the Home Office to the recommendations we made that it should rethink aspects of its current policy. The UK opt-out from the long-term residents directive was in our view of particular importance. We explained in paragraph 101 of our report that third-country nationals would acquire the right to reside in the territory of any other member state to exercise an economic activity, whether employed or self-employed, to pursue studies or for other purposes. They may then acquire long-term resident status in the second member state when they move there. We recommended that the United Kingdom should review its opt-out from this directive and from the family reunification directive. As we said, together they provide an excellent foundation of rights for migrant workers in the EU. The directives do not have any consequences for the Government’s position on border controls and would enhance the position of third-country nationals resident in the UK. By way of example, third-country nationals in the UK—for instance, US or Indian nationals who have resided here for five years—will not be able to take advantage of the directive’s provisions to move, say, to Paris or Frankfurt. They remain blocked in the United Kingdom. Surely we can all agree that that is neither in their interests nor in the interests of the United Kingdom. Moreover, assimilating the position of long-term third-country nationals’ rights to that of migrant citizens of the Union, including by enabling participation in the political life of the country, is a matter of not only improving their living and working conditions but fostering their harmonious integration into society. The Government decline to reconsider their opt-out. The reason, it seems, is a fear of not maintaining domestic control over who is admitted to the UK. In general, I have no quarrel with retaining control of our borders. But we are talking about people who have already resided in another member state for at least five years, continuously and, more importantly, legally. They make a valuable contribution to the economy of the Union. What have we to fear from giving them the right to come to this country? The Government say that, despite the opt-out, it is not their intention that the UK should be seriously out of line with our European partners. But that, of course, is precisely what it will be. The Government’s reasons are not in my opinion valid, but at least they are there for us to read. In the case of two other recommendations, not even this can be said. We recommended that the UK should reconsider the case for acceding to the Council of Europe convention on migrant workers, for the reasons given in paragraphs 98 and 99 of the report. The Government decline to do so, but give us no reasons why. The least the Minister can do is explain why giving migrant workers the rights in the convention is right for France, Italy, the Netherlands and other countries, which have done so since 1983, but not for the UK. The other recommendation relates to the UN convention on the protection of migrant workers. The UK objection to accession is mainly on the alleged cost of housing and social security. All we urged the Government to do was commission research to establish what these costs would actually be. This they declined to do. Will the Minister explain the reason for that? Is the Home Office perhaps afraid that the cost might not be as great as it believes it to be? I turn now to our report on the Commission’s proposals for a common EU returns policy for illegal migrants. I wish to highlight Article 9 of the draft directive, which we deal with in chapter 5, concerning the re-entry ban. Will the Minister confirm that we are right to question the legal base here? Does she agree that, if there is to be a re-entry ban, a clear distinction must be drawn between those guilty of serious criminal offences for whom it is justified, and those who have simply been in the county illegally—for instance, someone who might have overstayed his or her visa? As the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, reminded us, the problem for Australia is illegal British emigrants overstaying their visa. The two situations I have described are totally different, and the one-policy approach for all is quite inappropriate. Our recommendation in paragraph 138 must be the logical way forward. I also draw the House’s attention to paragraphs 26 and 28. Do the Government agree that EU instruments should not be made if there is a real question of subsidiarity? Will the Minister look at that point again? The draft directive has been roundly condemned by most people, but it is rather novel, in that it requires co-decision with the European Parliament. The Commission and the Parliament are approaching the subject from different standpoints, and many predict that there will therefore be stalemate. The Commission has allocated substantial funds to implement this programme, but Parliament controls the purse strings this time, and has linked the two issues. There is also the need to show that co-decision works, and the Commission will not only want to prove its ability in this new area of lawmaking for them but also produce more legislation on immigration in the future. A failure would be damaging for them. Thus I fear that some directive will be cobbled together, and the result will doubtless be worse than the existing regimes, with a lowering of standards by some member states. Once again we stand alone in the EU as the only parliamentary body scrutinising these issues. The quality of our reports has been enhanced by the skill and hard work of our Clerks, staff and special advisers, whom I too thank very much.