---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the second report, which deals with the proposed EU directive for a common returns policy for illegal migrants. Noble Lords have already touched on points I intended to make, but there is one aspect I would like to emphasise; that is, information, or the lack of it. The need for information—indeed, the right to it—was a constant theme in our deliberations in Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and with expert guidance from the staff. First, we noted that those in detention in the UK, while often within a humane environment, did not always receive the legal advice and other information they had a right to, which inevitably made their time in detention more bewildering and much more frightening for the children. Noble Lords have already spoken against detention for overstaying migrants, but we also accept that, under certain circumstances in relation to some countries, there may well be a need for a period of detention. However, that has to be accompanied by full and free access to information on why they are being detained, what procedures will occur, and what rights the individuals have with regard to appeals, applications for bail and progress of their cases. The second area in which information is lacking and there is a gap much criticised by a number of witnesses, including the Chief Inspector of Prisons, is updated statistics on the length of time any one individual or family spends in detention. Reference has been made to the fact that, as things stand in the UK at the moment, while it is possible to have a snapshot of how many people are in detention at any one time, apparently no one can say how long their stays are or have been. If the UK is to contribute to standard setting in developing humane and dignified return policy and practice, there will have to be more transparency on family structure, countries of origin, ages of children and, most importantly, detention period themselves—details, I might add, which are readily available for prisoners. The third aspect is to do with the sharing of information on conditions in those countries to which illegal migrants are to be returned and the criteria on what constitutes a safe return environment. Member states need to have rapid access to information on return decisions, removal orders and any re-entry bans imposed by other member states. There appear to be no common standards, nor is there any effective mechanism for sharing such information. For example, one of the witnesses who manages a service organisation returning migrants from EU member states to countries of origin repeatedly told us that each member state makes its own assessments. These clearly differ from one member state to another, which in turn suggests that there are no agreed criteria. The risk here is that overstaying migrants who have committed no criminal offence may be returned to countries in which they will suffer ill treatment—a fate which even convicted prisoners and terrorist suspects are spared. The fourth and final area in which there is still need for much more and better information is on the causes and processes of migration itself. Illegal migrants—a term, incidentally, which none of the committee favoured, as has been mentioned—are not seen as people in often desperate need but as spongers, job stealers, abusers of national services and generally bad news. This, as we have heard today, is not the whole truth by any means. If the citizens of EU member states could be made more aware of the kind of difficulties that cause whole families to decamp and face uncertainty, danger, huge financial burdens and debts, humiliation and exploitation, there might be less hostility towards these economically advantageous workers, and therefore less pressure on governments to promote and practise at times brutal deportation procedures. The Government have chosen not to opt into the proposed directive—a decision the committee has certainly endorsed. However, the examination of policy and practice among European member states has given us all the opportunity to understand better what constitutes best practice. While the UK is clearly towards the forefront of developing best practice, the recommendations of the committee do not have to wait until a directive is agreed and implemented. They could be put into effect immediately, and this is something we now ask the Government to do.