---

Economic Migration (EUC Report)

My Lords, I add my voice to all those right around the House who have commended the noble Lord, Lord Wright, on securing the debate and on the sterling work that he and his committee have done to bring this to fruition. It has given me considerable pleasure to have the advantage of listening to the debate, because I have enjoyed the really quite extraordinary experience of the Government being applauded all around the House in relation to a matter that involves immigration, Europe and migration, and I shall savour it for a very long time. I hear the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, say that that is unlikely to happen again. I assure him that we shall strive to ensure that this is a regular occurrence. It was also right for all those around the House to applaud the contribution made by migrants to this country. I agree with those sentiments. I include, of course, those migrants present in this House: the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, my noble friend Lord Parekh—Professor Parekh—and indeed the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Although the noble Earl’s migration took place a little while ago, it is valuable none the less. I imagine that if every Member of this House examined their history, they would probably discover that they were migrants too. So to all those who have rightly applauded migration we in the Government join our voice. That migration has to be viewed against the background that we have experienced right across Europe: joining the EU has given huge benefits to all the countries privileged to join in this enterprise. Looking at Spain, Portugal and Greece, which might at one stage have had a difficulty with migration, now one sees that the reverse is true. They, too, are enjoying the benefits of immigration, which, before they joined the EU, may not have been entirely within their contemplation. I am very pleased that the committee’s inquiry and report have given rise to such comity in how we and it looked at the issue. Therefore, we were pleased to endorse many of the committee’s overall conclusions, particularly that economic migration by third country nationals is important to the economies of the European Union member states; that such migration needs to be regulated in the interests of all parties concerned, a matter echoed around this House; and that, because of the diversity of the labour market needs and requirements, detailed criteria governing it should remain a responsibility of member states. There are many other conclusions in the report with which we wholeheartedly agree. As we said in the Government’s response to the report, we agree with the committee’s conclusions on the free movement of nationals of the new member states. We also share its view that it would be inappropriate to get too far with the new proposals regarding the control of third country nationals entering the EU for the purpose of employment without addressing intra-EU mobility. We agreed with the conclusion that it is not possible to set an overall limit for net migration. We were also pleased to see the committee share the Government’s view that national economic considerations should remain the primary determinant of the level of economic migration while taking due account of the interests of other parties. However, we very much take into account what the right reverend Prelate has said: of course, it is not the only factor. There are other obligations in relation to moral and ethical interests. The European Commission has since published its policy plan on legal migration. We are engaging constructively in that. We will continue to do so in the months ahead. I particularly welcome the passion with which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, spoke on these issues. I agree with him about that, although I should say—I am sure that he will not be disappointed—that I do not quite agree with his assessment of my department’s approach, not least as one of the greatest departments of state that this country is privileged to have. If we look at the performance overall, even the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will say that we do not do too bad a job. We understand the difficulties and differences of view on the failure to sign or ratify the conventions referred to in this debate. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the United Kingdom is not alone in having difficulties with signing the UN convention. No EU or G8 state has signed or ratified that convention to date. That does not mean that the rights of migrant workers are not considered. Noble Lords will know that migrant workers are already protected in UK law, including the Human Rights Act 1998. The convention would give migrants the same access to public funds and services as British citizens, regardless of their length of stay in the United Kingdom, which would have major cost implications and would undermine our border controls by being an unnecessary pull factor. Similar considerations apply to the Council of Europe convention to which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and others referred. The transitional measures are of course very important, and therefore it is with some pride that we acknowledge that the UK has been at the forefront in Europe in welcoming those from the A8 and A10 countries. We are committed to working with our European partners to achieve an effective, fair and managed system of immigration and asylum. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, made it clear that that would be his party’s approach too. I also welcome the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that this is the acceptable face of our immigration and asylum policy, so we have a united view on that. We are committed to continuing to work with even greater energy with our European partners to achieve an effective, fair and managed system of immigration and asylum. Co-operation with our European partners helps us to tackle abuse of our asylum system and to combat illegal immigration. When one looks at the whole tranche of legislation that we have sought to put together over the past seven to nine years, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, accepts that in terms of speed, effectiveness and efficiency, we have made a marked improvement. More remains to be done, but we have moved a significant way forward from where we were. As all noble Lords have emphasised, the United Kingdom has the right to operate frontier controls on people arriving from other EU countries as well as from the rest of the world. That will not change. Where there is a clear benefit to the United Kingdom in participating in individual EU measures, we will do so. That, I think, has been demonstrated by our approach to date. However, we will not participate in any measure which is not in our interests. It is right to say that the leadership we have shown is now being emulated by others. My noble friend Lord Dubs began a recitation subsequently taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in talking about the changes that have taken place in the stance adopted by Finland, Spain, Greece and Portugal, all of which have indicated that they will lift restrictions. France has said that it is not prepared to do so now, but that it will in the future. Two other countries have not yet given any firm indication. However, one can see that this is going in the right direction and our own experience may well influence the experience of our partners, as they see that the disaster they thought would take place has not come about and that the benefits which we are reaping are indeed considerable. I know too that much comment has been made about the UK opt-ins. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, made the point. Our policy remains that we will opt in to asylum and immigration measures provided that they are in the national interest and consistent with our policy of retaining frontier controls. In practice, we have opted in to almost all EU asylum and illegal immigration proposals. Not opting in does not mean that we are losing influence on EU asylum and immigration co-operation, as shown during the UK presidency. We continue to take an active role in shaping the agenda: launching the global approach to migration with priority actions focused on Africa and the Mediterranean; securing intergovernmental agreement on common minimum security standards and issuing procedures for ID cards; and influencing the Commission’s approach to readmission agreements, having secured agreement on the EU human trafficking action plan under the UK presidency, and now pushing succeeding presidencies to ensure implementation. That vigorous approach will continue and I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that it will also continue in relation to the matters he raised in his speech. I should say to noble Lords that the European Commission’s policy plan on legal migration, which follows the Commission’s Green Paper on the EU approach to managing economic migration, at present has no concrete legislative proposals. The United Kingdom would not be obliged to take part in any legislative measures, as we retain the right to opt in to immigration measures when we believe it is in our interests to do so. This is very much at a formulative stage and I can assure noble Lords—particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman and others—that we will continue to look at the matter with an appropriate degree of care. But, in respect of the common framework of rights for third country nationals, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, we would first need to be convinced of the need, taking the view that these rights are a matter for member states. Her Majesty’s Government have been concerned also about minimum standards and the potential impact on the UK’s public expenditure. My noble friend Lord Dubs raised the issue of family removals; this was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and commented upon by the noble Baroness Lady, D’Souza—all of whom have expressed concerns. Removals are always carried out in the most sensitive way possible, treating those being removed with courtesy and dignity. Depending upon the individual circumstances of each case, we always endeavour to keep families together, but there will inevitably be occasions when this is not possible. Removing people who fail to depart voluntarily is a key part of our work to ensure effective immigration controls. I say ““voluntarily”” because the first attempt must provide people with an opportunity to go in a way which is well managed and consensual. If such people fail and/or refuse to take that opportunity, then, in order to comply with the effective and efficient policy of removal that noble Lords opposite have strongly endorsed, we have to take appropriate steps to make sure that those who no longer have the right to remain actually leave. Officers involved in family removals receive thorough training in procedures to minimise the distress caused to a removable family and to ensure that the family is detained for no longer than is absolutely necessary. The Government have made clear that those whose applications for asylum have failed, and who fail to depart from the United Kingdom voluntarily, will be removed when they have no legal right to be here. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, says in relation to legal aid and the opportunities made available to them. I can assure him that those matters will be further considered. The noble Earl has rightly assessed and dealt with some of the arguments which have been laid before us as to why the position is as it now is. Third country nationals are an important feature of the work that we do. My noble friend Lord Parekh rightly highlighted the issue of the disparity between those who are very educated and may make a contribution, and those who may have lower skills but have made an efficient and effective contribution over many years. I hope noble Lords appreciate that we are not against third country nationals coming to the United Kingdom—for instance, for work or study—and that by opting out of the directive we ask them to qualify under our immigration rules instead. This is sensible and reasonable in that third country nationals can still come to the United Kingdom and yet we can maintain control over our borders. In practice, that usually means that there has to be a firm prospect of study or work for them and that they are not just entering in a speculative way. We think that is a balanced and appropriate way in which to deal with the matter. We think that the points-based system referred to by my noble friend Lord Parekh and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is the fairest and most appropriate system. There does not necessarily need to be a disjunction between the points systems and the labour market; the two can be married well. We think our system enables that to take place. I remind the House that the proposed Skills Advisory Board will have a role in advising government on labour needs. That will be reflected in the points-based system, which it will be possible to review. I understand what my noble friend says about an independent body, but the advisory board has an element that, we think, could be quite constructive because it would be inclusive, engage others and get the expert advice that would ensure that our points-based system was the best that we could make it. I know that the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lord Parekh about doctors who have found themselves in difficulties is of real concern. I assure noble Lords that no overseas doctor is having his stay curtailed or being asked to leave the United Kingdom as a result of the changes that we announced. The reality is that they are now likely to have to compete with others for more posts after postgraduate training and, in particular, to obtain work permits. However, that is a consequence of our attracting doctors in the first place and the increase in graduates from our own medical training schools. The instances cited are very distressing, whatever the circumstances that have brought them about. If people have taken their own life or become mentally distressed as a result of changes for which they were not prepared, that is a matter of concern. We deplore the extreme and dramatic way in which some groups have chosen to report our changes and which may have falsely given people cause for concern when that concern was not merited. However, the Government cannot undertake never to change immigration rules or guarantee that the rules in force when someone comes to our country will remain the same for all time. The Government must be able to respond to the change in needs and circumstances that are properly conveyed to them.