---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and his committee on securing this joint debate on the European sub-committees’ reports. I thank him as chairman of Sub-Committee F and the other noble Lords on his team for the hard work that they have put in to produce the reports on what has been cited by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, on which we have heard such a distinguished contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Best, as,"““one of the most contested public policy issues in the UK." That statement cannot be better illustrated than by the recent passage of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, to which noble Lords have referred. Indeed, the debate surrounding it touched on many of the issues raised in the reports. The IAN Bill was the fourth to be presented in three years. It has taken the exposure of the failures of the current system before Her Majesty’s Government admitted that the current immigration system was not working; indeed, in their own words it was ““complex, subjective and bureaucratic””. We welcome the new points-based immigration system proposed in the Bill, with the caveats—I am pleased that the Government eventually accepted this—that Parliament can, first, review the points system in three years; secondly, that the Government will undertake an administrative review of applications; and, thirdly, that they will abolish appeals against the refusal of a visa for work and study. That goes at least some way to addressing the concerns addressed by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. During the passage of the Bill in another place, the Minister summarised the current situation regarding immigration and asylum law as a ““legislative jigsaw puzzle””. Does the Minister agree with me that it is time for consolidating legislation in a move towards increasing transparency for all that it affects? Transparency is indeed one of the keys to creating a firm, fair, controlled immigration system, which is essential not only for good race and community relations but for the orderly provision of public services. There can be no doubt that economic migration adds to the economic, cultural and social fabric of today’s society and that we could not do without it. As the 14th report highlights, accession workers have filled vacancies in sectors that face labour shortages, in particular hospitality, catering and agriculture. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the important representations that were received by many Members of the Committee on the IAN Bill from the Chinese and Indian catering communities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for going into that in some detail. As the committee agreed, it is important to manage the migration aspirations of nationals of candidate countries and maintain a balance between the needs and expectations of both employers and workers. In their response, the Government stated at paragraph 114 that they noted the importance of their overseas posts in playing a role in managing expectations. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us how many of those overseas posts there are and give a rough spread of where they are located. In particular, we are concerned that they should not be cut back along with the embassies and consulates being closed around the world. We agree that there are benefits in expanding migration. However, uncontrolled immigration can have the opposite effect, especially when combined with growing illegal immigration and the continued failure of the Government to remove those to whom permits or asylum are refused. I need not remind your Lordships that the number of removals has fallen for five of the past six quarters. While I am highlighting the flaws of the current system, I hasten to add that we agree that there is no single EU labour market, so a single framework to regulate access to such a market would not work. There are significant differences between member states, and the effective implementation of a common policy would be difficult to reconcile with national interests. We cannot have a common EU returns policy if there is no common migration policy. I believe that I am at one with the Minister on this point, but I notice the committee’s emphasis on the necessity for a common EU returns policy. Our position is simple: we wish to retain control of our borders and systems. It is just unfortunate, to say the least, that the government proposals to date do not address the lack of control at our ports and borders. Not until we can secure our borders can we begin to curb the illegal immigration that undermines the current system. We also have concerns that the current system does not do enough to deter the abuse of Immigration Rules. We welcome the sanctions proposed in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. The exploitation that has developed in some sectors of our economy in recent years is a disgrace, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Best, have mentioned. However, as with much of the recent Home Office legislation, sanctions options were already in place under Section 8 of the 1996 Act but have simply not been used. I hope the Minister will assure me that the Government will put the new sanctions that they have proposed into practice and will demonstrate their effectiveness. I want to touch on two other issues raised by the committee and in the debate today. The first is the detention pending removal particularly of children. The 32nd report, published on Tuesday, picks up on points also made by the Save the Children report No Place for a Child: Children in UK immigration detention—Impacts, alternatives and safeguards. All vulnerable groups need special consideration, but children have been shown to be triply at risk of mental and physical health problems and the knock-on disruption of their education and development. I hope the Minister will be able to use her speech to respond to the committee’s recommendations regarding children, and that she will comment on her department’s assessment of the Save the Children recommendations on the issue. The second issue, which is linked to the above, is the failure of the Home Office to keep statistics on the time individuals have been in detention, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright. This applies particularly to children and in age-disputed cases. For instance, it is only currently a guesstimate that 2,000 children are detained with their families. Following the recent debacle with released prisoners, I can only agree that such a failure is indefensible, and I join other noble Lords in asking what steps the Government are taking to correct this crucial absence of information. This debate is set within the context of the tripling of immigration under this Government, which has caused considerable and understandable public concern about the number of people who want to come and live in England. I reiterate that it is vital that we develop a transparent, firm, fair and controlled immigration system. Although we need to secure and maintain control over our own borders, our lack of support for a common EU immigration or returns policy should not necessarily preclude co-operation. Again, my noble friend Lord Marlesford made that point. What plans do the Government have to participate in debates with other members of the EU on immigration and asylum issues? I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.