---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, some of us remain seasoned commentators on asylum and immigration matters. As I look around the Chamber, I am delighted to see that this debate has included the usual suspects. Many debates on this subject tend to be emotive. Successive legislation since the Immigration Act 1962 has demonstrated that fairness has often been sacrificed in favour of a faster, firmer policy. We seem to be obsessed with the numbers game. I have always believed that migration, whether for economic or security reasons, requires sensitive handling. National and Europe-wide policy should be focused on our moral, economic and legal obligations. It is for these reasons that I welcome the European Union Committee’s two reports which are being debated today. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and his committee. Whether we like it or not, asylum and immigration issues will not go away. Deeply engraved in people’s minds are the wider issues of economic migration and legal and illegal immigration. These are matters of Europe-wide concern. Let us look at the past debates in France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain. Further away, even Australia is not immune. Even countries such as the United States, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Maclennan, are now faced with the debate on the status of migrant workers who cross the frontiers in search of better job opportunities. We have to accept that we require international and Europe-wide responses instead of simply a national approach. We must never forget that the poorest countries of the world have accommodated the largest number of migrants and refugees within their borders. The underlying principles we need to examine are fairly obvious. We must accept that the present trend of globalisation affects populations as much as it affects trade and environment. Europe, to some extent, has a declining birth rate and life spans are getting longer—a point so ably made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. It is no longer a case of who we admit. It is more a question of how we create wealth to pay for pensions and social and welfare services if we have a declining workforce. We need to concentrate more on the positive contributions that migrants make when given the opportunity to settle. Let us look at London today. It has probably the most diverse and international workforce in the country. I have never disputed that migration policies must take into account Britain’s national interest both economically and socially. Moreover, they must take into account the safety and security of our nation. We must never remain static and will always be forced to respond to changes around us. The economy is no longer national; it is global. That factor alone brings different countries and different nations together. If one adds knowledge-based migration to this, we come to realise that international migration is a central feature of this global system. We ought not to forget the huge economic benefits for Britain of cashing in on knowledge-based expertise, including attracting the brightest and best talents. For this reason, if we are to play a constructive role in meeting the huge challenges before us, we need to explore carefully the implications of economic migration to the EU and a common EU returns policy. In a way, the points-based system that was recently introduced by the Government has some merit. It may be a starting point in meeting the objectives of attracting migrants who have most to contribute and establishing a transparent application process involving less abuse of the system. There is also a need to exercise caution. In meeting our EU obligations, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture. Commonwealth immigrants have been very successful here, bringing huge economic benefits to Britain. The integration of migrants to British life has been remarkably successful, which is not the case when compared with some of our European neighbours. So let me identify two recent issues of concern. I am delighted that the Chinese community in Britain has been quite vociferous in its criticism of recent policy directives from the Government. They are concerned that the qualifying settlement period has been increased, which has affected not only the work permit holders but also their employers. The Government’s stated intention is merely a ““desire”” to keep in line with our European neighbours and therefore there was no benefit in maintaining a four-year settlement period. The danger of retrospective effects here is very considerable. This situation is unfair to those already in this country who have made plans on the reasonable assumption that the qualifying period would not change and it has unnecessarily disadvantaged those skilled immigrants who contribute significantly to this country and our economy. The Home Office has not given sufficient notice of these changes and, if they were justified, they should apply only to those entering the country now and not retrospectively. The Chinese community also points out that recent changes do not seem to recognise the effect on businesses. There is no regulatory impact assessment of how the points system would impact on Asian catering businesses here. The second and third generations of youngsters born here have no interest in providing labour in the catering industry. The skilled labour market overseas has filled this gap, but it is likely to be affected by the points system. The other aspect, quite ably demonstrated by the problem, is the change in visa rules which effectively bars foreign doctors from completing training in the NHS. That point was ably raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. Many will be forced to leave the UK during the summer, heavily in debt and with no qualifications. The rule change means that hospitals must give first preference to graduates from within the European economic area. I do not dispute that there is a need for a new system based on the needs of the NHS, but the direct result of the change is unfair on doctors who are already here. This retrospective effect on those who entered this country legally is tantamount to betrayal of those who spent their resources to come here. We recognise that overseas doctors have played a vital part in the NHS for many years, making it all the more insensitive to change the rules with no notice. We feel that at the very least the matter should apply only from now on and not to those who have made plans on the reasonable assumption that the conditions under which they entered the UK to train would not change and who are already registered with the General Medical Council. I note that the Department of Health has said that it has put transitional arrangements in place for those who have been offered a post starting on or before 4 August, but what about those who are still looking for posts? When we have distilled the recommendations of the EU committee report, one thing stands out—it is to identify a role for the EU in setting standards, particularly as it affects the rights of migrant workers. This is commendable and, as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out,"““it is necessary to avoid any tendency to regulatory competition between member states in their treatment of the migrant workforce””." It is estimated that there are nearly 20 million migrant workers in the EU. It is therefore right that we opt into the long-term residence directive and the family reunion directive. I am disappointed that the Government have no plans to commission research into the likely costs and consequences of acceding to the UN convention on the protection of migrant workers. Again, that is well reflected in the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. I suspect that there will be challenges over the coming year, and I have no doubt that the Government will have to give way at some stage. We share the sentiments expressed by the committee about proposals for a common EU returns policy which is deeply flawed in a number of respects and might result in a lowering of standards currently applicable in the UK. Voluntary return is most effective, manageable and sustainable. We can cite examples of failed applicants coerced into returning. An example was well demonstrated by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the breast-feeding mother whose child was taken away with the intention of deporting her. I resist the temptation to talk about the issues affecting children. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has already spoken on that and I commend his contribution. The committee should be congratulated on producing this very important report. These reports are the acceptable face of our policy on immigration.