You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Westminster Hall

 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 145WH
 

Westminster Hall

Thursday 24 February 2005

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Migration and Development

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report from the International Development Committee Session 2003–04 HC79-I and the Government's response thereto, First Special Report Session 2004–05 HC 163.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]

2.30 pm

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): The International Development Committee is grateful for the opportunity to debate the report, not least because it gives a further opportunity to draw it and the Government's response to the attention of the House. This, as with every other report of the International Development Committee, is a unanimous report, and every recommendation is unanimous. If there were to be a headline, or for those who will read no further in Hansard, it would convey that we concluded:

I hope that many hon. Members will read our report, because quite a lot of what we have to say may be counter-intuitive and perhaps not what people expect. I think that we exposed several myths about migration. The history of migration is the history of people's struggle to survive and prosper, to escape insecurity and poverty and to move in response to opportunity. When I considered how best to summarise the report for this debate it occurred to me that I could do no better than to share with the House the published summary:

The summary mentions that global flows of aid amount to just under $70 billion a year, and continues:

Why? Because


 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 146WH
 

There are, however, several migration myths, which we should like to dispel. Myth No. 1 is that migration and migrants are problems to be dealt with. That is wrong. First, migration presents both challenges and opportunities. In their determination to deal with the challenges, Governments must not miss the opportunities. Secondly, migrants are not problems. They are people trying to improve their lives, and must be treated accordingly.

Myth No. 2 is that there is a tidal wave of migrants about to crash upon our shores. That is wrong. Migration is hugely important—economically and politically—because of the links that it establishes between countries, but it remains the exception rather than the rule. International migration has increased over the past 40 years, but still only 2.9 per cent. of the world's population are international migrants.

Myth No. 3 is that migration is primarily about people moving from developing countries to developed countries. That is also wrong. Most migration takes place within and between developing countries. Fully 40 per cent. of international migrants move between poor countries, and the number of migrants who stay in their own country far exceeds that of international migrants. To compare, there are 175 million international migrants, whereas India alone has 200 million internal migrants and China 120 million. As regards refugees, two thirds live in developing countries and more than one third live in the least developed countries.

Myth No. 4 is that it is the poorest, most desperate people who migrate. That is also wrong. The poorest people often lack the resources to migrate; if they do migrate, they are likely to move locally. That obviously has major implications for policy. First, it cannot be assumed that policies to help migrants, particularly international migrants, will also help the poorest people. Secondly, migration will not necessarily be stemmed by    lifting people out of poverty. Nevertheless, improvements to governance in developing countries can reduce people's motivation to leave, and the encouragement of remittances and return can make the migration that occurs more development-friendly.

The fifth and last of those myths is that migration harms the prospects of developing countries by causing a brain drain. The response to that is that it does not necessarily do so. Migration can lead to a brain drain that harms the prospects of developing countries, but whether it does so depends on the nature of that migration, and the links that it establishes between host and home countries. Flows of remittances and other resources and the return of migrants with new skills can offset the loss of migrants, and may even lead to a "brain gain".

In our report, having dispelled those myths, we then tried to make it clear how to make migration work for poverty reduction. We did that through the examination of migration journeys. Each stage of the migration journey offers entry points for policy, through which Governments—in the United Kingdom and other developed and developing countries, and at multilateral level—can make migration work for poverty reduction.

Rich countries must not exacerbate the problems of the brain drain for poor countries. International recruitment—including that of nurses and teachers, about which I shall say more later—must be better
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 147WH
 
regulated. The push factors that lead to migration from developing countries must be addressed. The opportunities for mutually beneficial arrangements—triple wins—for migrants, migrant-sending and migrant-receiving countries should be explored.

In relation to travelling, arriving and living, more effort must be put into tackling trafficking in people, smuggling and illegal migration. Decisions about migrant status must be taken fairly and quickly. Migrants must be enabled to live productive lives. The Governments in host societies must ensure that migrants are not denied access to services, that migrants' integration into host societies is supported, and that migrants' rights are protected.

With respect to returning, reintegrating and circulating, flexible systems of temporary and circular migration, and ways of making return sustainable should be established. If such schemes are to deliver development benefits, development stakeholders must be fully involved in their design.

We also considered the matter of resource flows; remittances and the role of the diaspora. Governments and others can shape and use the links that migration establishes between home and host societies. Such links include remittances and the diaspora, two areas to which we paid particular attention. The onus is on policy makers to encourage the flow of remittances, to reduce the costs that migrants have to pay to send money home and to improve the investment climate in developing countries so that remittances can be used productively and in ways that reduce poverty. The diaspora and its members can be important agents of development. Governments have much to learn from deeper engagement with the diaspora, its members and its constituent organisations. The diaspora should be involved in discussions on development strategies, voluntary remittance schemes and sustainable development.

The Department for International Development and Ministers told us that the debate on migration and development is at the stage where the trade and development debate was 10 years ago. People are beginning to say that there is a development dimension to migration, but there is a lack of joined-up thinking at national and international levels and some resistance to connecting the issues. We share that analysis and hope that our work, our report and DFID's commendable efforts will ensure that it does not take another 10 years to reach the same stage as we are at now with trade and development.

I was glad to see that the Government stated in their response to our report that

As the Government rightly observe:

We had a large number of conclusions, 61 in all. I do not intend to go through them all, but I would like to draw the Chamber's attention to a few.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 148WH
 

Our first conclusion is that policies aimed at delivering development and poverty reduction should not start from the assumption that migration is a rare occurrence, a south-north phenomenon or a one-off event. Policies need to be based on an understanding of the multi-faceted nature of migration, including temporary, circular and seasonal migration within and between developing countries as well as from south to north. I have already drawn the Chamber's attention, for example, to circular migration in countries such as India and China.

Policy makers must pay careful attention to the experiences and concerns of female migrants to ensure that their migration is beneficial. As the poorest do not migrate or do not migrate far, it cannot be assumed that policies that help migrants will also help the poor. That is a dilemma for those who would like migration management to reduce migration; developed countries cannot expect to solve their immigration problems by simply reducing poverty in developing countries.

One of the conclusions that we came to, which has had quite a lot of attention recently in the media, is that it is unfair, inefficient and incoherent for developed countries to provide aid to help developing countries make progress towards the millennium development goals on health and education while helping themselves to doctors, nurses and teachers who have been trained in and at the expense of developing countries. It is difficult to pick up a newspaper here or anywhere else without seeing reference to that growing phenomenon.

On Thursday 27 January the Kenyan Business Day contained the headline, "Rich world 'gets free ride on skills'". The report from Addis Ababa read:

That report was by the International Organisation for Migration. The article continued:

The Guardian observed 10 days ago that Sri Lanka, still recovering from the devastation of December's tsunami, has accused Britain of undermining its embattled health services by failing to prevent hospitals from luring trained doctors and nurses to work in the United Kingdom. According to its Minister of Health, the offers of big money, better facilities and prestige training establishments in Britain is too much for many Sri Lankan doctors to resist, and are causing "a grave problem" for its health system.

A report last Sunday in The Mail on Sunday observed that two thirds of our new doctors come from developing countries. Of the 27,228 new doctors registered last year, 17,718—65 per cent.—were foreign, and almost one in three came from India. That is believed to be the highest number of foreign-trained doctors registered to practise medicine in the UK in a single year. Of the 34,617 new nurses registered last year, 44 per cent. were from overseas. That means that almost half of all new nurses from overseas come from developing countries.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 149WH
 

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): I have not read the report in The Mail on Sunday, as it is not my newspaper of choice on a Sunday. However, an important policy issue is clearly raised by the flow that my hon. Friend describes. Does he agree that it is incredibly important, when debating that phenomenon and deciding the appropriate policy response to it, that we avoid the development of a blame culture? As I said, I have not seen the report, but all too often there is an implicit suggestion that it is the people who are coming who are the problem—they are to be blamed and they are a source of nuisance—and a febrile atmosphere is created in which they become legitimate targets for attack. Consistent with what my hon. Friend said at the outset, that is, of course, quite wrong and should be regarded as unacceptable.

Tony Baldry : I entirely agree. As I said, the strapline of our report is, and should be, that migration and migrants should not be seen as problems to be dealt with. Migration presents both challenges and opportunities. Migrants are trying to improve their lives and must be treated accordingly. I should say, however, that I visited Lilongwe general hospital in Malawi about 18 months ago. It was probably one of the nearest things to hell on earth that I have ever seen in that there were almost no nurses. A cohort of nurses had recently finished their training and almost all were leaving Malawi straight away to come to the UK. That issue must be addressed.

The Select Committee concluded that the regulation and recruitment of health care professionals by the UK raised several issues that need clarifying. How effective has the NHS code of practice been? What will the Government do to enforce the code of practice, or to encourage NHS employers to adhere to it? Where does tacit recruitment end and active recruitment begin? Perhaps most importantly, how significant a loophole is the fact that the code does not apply to the private sector? Specifically, how many health workers from developing countries are employed in the private and public sectors, and how many of those employed in the public sector were initially recruited for the private sector? In exchanges in the Chamber, Ministers have rightly said that there is an NHS code of practice, but that code does not apply to nursing agencies. What frequently happens is that nurses from overseas are recruited by agencies and then go to work in the NHS.

Another of the Committee's conclusions is that, if the NHS is to depend on overseas workers, the Government should consider designing schemes to train nurses in developing countries for temporary employment for a specified number of years in the NHS on the understanding that they will then return to their home countries. Such a scheme would need to be carefully designed, but the potential development benefits and the fact that that would be a more cost-effective way of training nurses, no matter where they ended up working, make it worthy of serious consideration. The costs of training nurses should not be borne by countries that do not benefit from their training, particularly if they are among the poorest countries in the world.

We went on to observe that one way in which to reduce illegal migration might be to open more transparent and efficient ways for legal migration, but although that might undercut traffickers and smugglers,
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 150WH
 
it would not satisfy the latent demand for migration, which needs to be managed. Illegal migration needs to be tackled.

We are concerned that the Government should do their utmost to protect migrants' rights to ensure that they are not exploited by employers, gangmasters and employment agencies. We certainly welcomed the swift progress of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill through Parliament; I hope that the subsequent 2004 Act will be an important step toward preventing the exploitation of workers, including migrant workers, by gangmasters.

There was a lot of discussion about the UN convention on migrants. We have invited the Government to explain why they have not ratified the convention and to provide the House with evidence to support the assumption that there is a trade-off between migrants' rights and immigration control.

We observed that, in order to ensure that returning migrants have something to go back to, Governments, with the support of donors, need to

We had an interesting evidence session in Southwark town hall with the Sierra Leonean diaspora in London, many of whom escaped or came to the UK in the years of conflict in Sierra Leone. For various reasons, I am a reasonably regular visitor to Freetown. The capacity of the civil service, and others, in Freetown is limited. There were probably more qualified and skilled people attending that evening in Southwark town hall than I have met in all my visits to Freetown. We must find ways to encourage people with skills to try to ensure that the countries of their birth can benefit from some of those skills, even if they do not go back to them permanently. That is not just about us, but about good governance in the countries concerned and ensuring that people feel that they can go back to countries where they have a future to look forward to.

We were pleased to hear that the Department for International Development and the European Union support programmes such as the IOM's migration for development in Africa programme, and pilot schemes in Ghana and Sierra Leone. It is only through learning from experience that the best ways of facilitating sustainable development can be discovered.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) is not here—he usually is, but I suspect that he is busy elsewhere—as he is the expert on mode 4 of the general agreement on trade in services. DFID reported that the UK's position on GATS mode 4 is widely viewed as being among the most progressive, which may be because DFID knows all about it. We say that the Government should make the UK's policy stance on GATS mode 4 clearer, and explain what the UK is doing to promote an agenda that will be of mutual benefit to the UK and developing countries. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether GATS mode 4 is ever used to enable people to use their skills elsewhere.

We spent some time considering remittances. As I said in my opening comments, it became clear to us that the value of remittances from migrants often
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 151WH
 
substantially outstrips the value of development aid. As part of the inquiry, we spent some time in Somaliland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) will talk about Somaliland, as he is probably the hon. Member with the most experience on that area, which has survived, grown and prospered almost entirely on the benefit of remittances. However, the transaction costs of those remittances can often be extremely high. We recognise

Migrants and their families have long been aware of the value of remittances. Greater awareness on the part of Governments and development agencies is welcome, but if the potential of remittances is to be maximised, more needs to be done to understand them and their use, to increase their flow and to make them work better for poverty reduction. The UK can encourage remittances by providing guarantees to back the issue of bonds by developing country Governments and by using tax incentives, such as treating person-to-person remittances as charitable and, therefore, as tax-deductible donations.

One problem for those who wish to send remittances back to developing countries is that the tightening of the rules on money laundering since 9/11 has made life a lot more difficult. This afternoon, we could go to addresses in Southall to deposit £5,000, and by tomorrow it would available for use in Hargeysa. However, that is becoming increasingly difficult because of the money laundering regulations, so it is much harder for people to send remittances home.

The UK Government and other Governments need to be concerned about that. We concluded:

We also spent some time reflecting on the role of the diaspora. We concluded:

However, we drew the attention of the House and the Government to a number of ways in which the Government and DFID might work further and better with the diaspora. We hope that the Government have taken note of those observations, because we all thought that diaspora groups, which have been largely overlooked in the development process, could, for example, be more systematically consulted on draft country assistance plans. The Treasury could also explore with the diaspora the possibility of developing schemes to enable migrants who wished to do so to channel remittances so that they have the maximum impact on tackling poverty.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 152WH
 

Although we applauded DFID for the leading role that it has taken in moving migration up the international development agenda, we felt that the Government should consider further what might be done at a multilateral level to manage migration better, and particularly to make it work better in terms of poverty reduction. It is interesting that the main organisation that deals with migration—the IOM—is not a UN agency. As with so many aspects of migration, it seems to be slightly policy off-beat and needs to be brought far more into the mainstream.

We felt that

The Commission for Africa is meeting today for the last time before the report on its work is published in the middle of March. We hope that the Government will consider how migration might contribute to development policies, as well as many other areas.

I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to read our report, because it reaches a number of counter-intuitive conclusions that I hope are worth considering. We have given thought to the brain drain, remittances, the diaspora and the benefits of migration, which might not have been the focus of sufficient attention in previous work. We hope that our report is not the end but the start of thematic work, which needs to be done by the Government and other agencies, so that it does not take 10 years for migration policy to become an integral part of development policy overall, as happened with trade policy.

3 pm

Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Committee. I am sure that he and other members of the Committee would agree that the report is one of the finest and most useful that we have produced, so it is good that we can debate it. I should point out that more of us would have attended this debate, but half of the Committee is on its way back from Iraq, so only the half that went to Sudan is here. You can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we do not go to holiday resorts—we go where things are difficult.

The issue is important, but it tends to be dealt with only in sensationalist headlines, without any analysis. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to some of our counter-intuitive findings, and it was interesting how often we investigated things and found what we did not expect. The report starts with myths about migration, which are valuable to consider. Often, the witnesses admitted that there was a dearth of quality information and expressed gratitude that the issues were being explored.

The hon. Gentleman referred to remittances, which are often far greater than the development assistance going to the countries from which people have come, but the issue has been neglected. Similarly, DFID itself admitted that inadequate attention had been paid to working with the diasporas, another matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. The diasporas are substantial in Britain, particularly in London, but we have not addressed the problem of how to use those resources to assist the countries from which the diasporas have come.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 153WH
 

As the hon. Gentleman said, the report makes 61 recommendations. I want to focus on just four areas: the drain of human resources from developing countries, which is an urgent problem that only the developed world can address; the problem of providing services in rural areas because of internal migration; the neglect of African agriculture, as there would be less internal and external migration if agriculture worked better in developing countries; and, finally, Somaliland. The hon. Gentleman flagged that up, and he would be astonished if I did not mention it, so I will not disappoint him.

Perhaps the most important issue in migration and development is the fact that some countries, in some areas of work, lose a disturbing number of their most qualified people to the developed world—what is commonly called the brain drain. The report puts it very powerfully:

That basically says, "Hypocrite—you say you're helping us." We need to consider the balance: whether we do more to help on health and education than we do to hinder through our employment policies. The report refers to the 60 to 70 per cent. of Ghana's health professionals who emigrate. The AfricaRecruit organisation, based here, calls it

The situation is even worse if we take into account the impact of HIV/AIDS. In my work with the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health on the relationship between HIV/AIDS and reproductive health services—which, I might point out, is launched next week under the title "The Missing Link"—UNAIDS reported that in some countries the size of the health force must triple or quadruple if universal coverage of anti-retroviral treatment is to be achieved. That is just one appalling disease, and if we are to treat it properly with the full coverage that everyone says there should be, we would need three to four times the existing health force.

In most countries affected by HIV/AIDS, vacancy rates for doctors, nurses and other health staff are extremely high. One example is Malawi—the hon. Gentleman referred to a visit to a hospital in Lilongwe—which has filled only half of its public sector nursing posts. Another staggering figure comes from Zambia, where out of more than 600 doctors trained since independence only 50 remain in the country.

That is truly the economics of Passchendaele. When we started on the study, I thought the only answer would be to stop our health and education services from robbing the developing world of its tiny minority of higher education graduates. However, while there is a place for a code of conduct in this matter, I doubt that it is having much impact. For a start, is it right to stop people seeking to extend their skills abroad? Secondly, even if we banned the practice, who else would? It is difficult to see the United States restricting recruitment in such a way, and there is a huge market all over the world for such skills. Even in this country, we have imposed a code on the NHS in England but not in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales nor on the private sector.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 154WH
 

Another point is that our own and Europe's demand for nurses is so huge that I cannot see any Government taking the political action necessary to impose understaffing on our hospitals, given the political importance of the perception of health services and the ever-growing need for nurses in an ageing population. Just this week, a Save the Children report quotes evidence estimating that the UK will need 25,000 more doctors and 254,000 more nurses in the future than it did in 1997. That situation could be mirrored across Europe.

It is also difficult to see how we in Britain will train enough nurses of our own given the dramatically wider opportunities for women and the unwillingness of men to go into nursing in great numbers. At one time, nursing was one of the few higher education occupations that was genuinely open to women. Codes of conduct may have their place, but if we are to solve the problem, we will have to do something much more radical—the code of conduct is simply not working. In the same briefing paper on Africa's aid to the NHS, Save the Children says that between 1999 and 2004, the total number of doctors registered in the UK and trained in Ghana doubled from 143 to 293.

Not all of the situation is negative, as the remittances sent back to the homelands by educated employees can be a considerable benefit as overseas investment. The Philippines probably led the way in training more nurses than it needed. I remember listening to a Syrian Minister who said that Syria would train more educated people than it needed because they would go abroad and send money back. That pattern will continue; it is an effective way of gaining foreign investment. Similarly, some may return to their homelands after gaining valuable experience in higher education. However, I think that we have to find a more radical answer.

If we are to employ those who are have been trained in developing countries, we should pay for them. It is morally unacceptable for us to cream them off as we have been doing. At present, we are stimulating the failure to meet the MDGs by plundering African countries of their human resources. I regret to say that the international community is not yet showing the boldness necessary to tackle the issue. It is not a matter for one nation alone. We need to put money directly into training to put right the deficit that we are causing.

We need much more boldness vis-à-vis migration and personal social services than we see now in connection with internal migration; such migration makes it difficult for rural areas throughout Africa to obtain even basic services. The western pattern of youngsters leaving secondary school and going to college for three years to gain professional qualifications will not equip the rural areas of developing countries with basic services. We have to face the fact that those who go to the big cities do not return in the required numbers. In Africa, they go away to work in the big cities or they emigrate—or, unfortunately, they contract HIV/AIDS. If we are to fight HIV/AIDS, if we are to provide primary education, and if we are to equip rural areas with modern skills, we have to find ways of training nurses, teachers and others with the skills that their communities need in situ—where they live and have ties.

We need ways of harnessing the new technologies to provide skills. We need to ensure that the traditional birth attendant becomes a trained birth attendant.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 155WH
 
Sometimes, the person who educates against HIV/AIDS is also the source of contraceptive supplies for those who wish to exercise choice. European staffing patterns will not meet the needs of Africa. Once again, I do not see the boldness of approach necessary to up-skill those areas.

I give another example of the importance of migration to development. We must ensure that migrations that would be damaging to development do not occur through the lack of appropriate action: a stitch in time saves nine.

I turn to the neglect of agriculture in northern development considerations. We say that we should respond to African needs, but it is difficult to find reference to agriculture in our development debates. However, agriculture is easily Africa's dominant industry. It is overwhelmingly from agriculture that future exports could come; and it is agriculture that will make a major contribution to the reduction in poverty and improvement in health.

The assumption by the development world, in Europe and further afield, seems to be that at the extreme Africa will go the same way as we have, with only 2 per cent. of the population living off the land, and that a decline in the numbers living off agriculture will occur. It is certainly true that people migrate to the cities, but for the foreseeable future agriculture will be by far the biggest industry on which most people in Africa depend. It is from agriculture that the increase in living standards will come. We must redress the current imbalances in our development policies because of the neglect of agriculture.

I look forward to the new policy on agriculture, which I think may be coming but which has been postponed—and postponed again, perhaps until after I have left this place. I say yet again that it is very important for development.

Mr. Bercow : The hon. Gentleman focuses on a truly critical issue. Surely, the real disaster of the poorest people in the least developed countries, who are dependent on agriculture, is twofold. First, they are very poor and their agriculture is being diminished by western trade policies. Secondly, consistent with what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said in presenting the report, either because they are simply too poor or because they lack access to information about alternatives that might be available to them, they do not migrate. Therefore, they have to stew in their own juice through no fault of their own.

Tony Worthington : I concur with that. I am delighted to see the unfairnesses of our trade policies emphasised. However, anybody who thinks that if we get rid of the common agricultural policy and make our trade policies completely fair then African agriculture will boom is living in cloud cuckoo land. Products of the right quality still have to be grown for export in the necessary quantities, and there is a huge self-sufficiency deficit to be made up. The movement to towns in Africa reflects not the magnetism of the towns but an avoidable failure in agriculture. Many towns do not have a burgeoning industry or employment opportunities of a quality that would justify movement off the land. A lot of migration
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 156WH
 
occurs because the land is not being used properly. I hope that the Commission for Africa report will address that issue, although the consultation paper was not encouraging in that respect.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): This is a genuine question; I elicit the hon. Gentleman's expertise. Can he explain why, if policy on agriculture becomes fair and the west stops dumping and ends the disgraceful regime of subsidised exports and the rest, we will not see the beginning of the renaissance of African agriculture? I am thinking of the micro-examples of exports from some farms in Kenya and elsewhere. Why would that not start to be repeated across the continent, as people invested to take advantage of the labour rates in Africa, which are relatively cheap compared with those of the developed world?

Tony Worthington : It will help. It would be foolish to say that it would not. However, there is more to it. I am, coincidentally, coming to a couple of relevant examples. It is often said that Africa never had the agricultural revolution, which was a huge stimulus to development in Asia. However, for internal reasons—not, in my view, for trading reasons—Africa becomes less self-sufficient and more dependent on others for its food security every year.

One or two of the instances that I am about to give are now being tackled, but that leads people to ask why they were not tackled before. Take the agricultural problem of tsetse fly, which affects cattle. It prevents them from being used effectively for ploughing. If the cattle in an area are infected by tsetse fly, perhaps only half the land in that area can be ploughed for crops, because the ploughing has to be done by hoe or dug by hand-pulled ploughs. There is now an Africa-wide proposal for tackling tsetse fly—I believe that it is going to start in six countries—and that is very welcome. However, one has to ask: why only now? Why, after generations of investment, are we not looking at ways in which the productivity of the land in those areas might be doubled or trebled?

Let me give another example. Many parts of Africa have similar problems. The hon. Members for Banbury and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) will remember going to Malawi. The country's agriculture is in crisis. Its soil, like that of many other areas, is degraded and depleted, which reflects the fact that much less fertiliser is now used. Interestingly, the United Nations millennium project report by Jeffrey Sachs, called "Investing in development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals", says that a quick win could be gained through the massive replenishment of soil nutrients for smallholder farmers through the free or subsidised distribution of fertiliser and agroforestry, which would be of massive benefit. Other things are then needed to make that sustainable. When my colleagues and I visited Malawi, we found that they kept sowing maize, and the soil could not cope with yet more demands on it, but the country has no mechanism and no policy to remedy an issue that is crucial to it.

It is time that we started to mean it when we talk about African needs and giving country ownership to Africa. I draw colleagues' attention to a wonderful book produced by the New Partnership for Africa's Development on the comprehensive Africa agriculture
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 157WH
 
development programme. It is not a bestseller, but everyone has their own taste. Agriculture is at the top of NEPAD's agenda, but European development agencies hardly mention it. It is important, when talking about migration, to avoid migrations that do not need to occur and to avoid sending people to towns that cannot cope. Africa, where most people are farmers, cannot feed itself, and has not been able to do so for many years. The number of people who are chronically undernourished in sub-Saharan Africa continues to rise. The NEPAD document states:

Why are we failing to listen to Africa about the importance of agriculture?

Finally, I want to talk about Somaliland, which the Committee visited and on which we commented in our report. I do so to point out the link between politics and migration, as it is often political factors that affect migration. Broadly speaking, Somaliland is the old British Somalia, which attained independence in 1960 and threw it away five days later by joining the old Italian Somalia. It rapidly regretted that decision. It was an unhappy relationship, which culminated in the dictator Siad Barre committing atrocities that we would have recognised as genocide if the television cameras had turned up, but we did not know about it. I visited the area a couple of years later, and have never seen devastation like it. Some 50,000 people were killed and 500,000 fled. I still cannot imagine an enemy taking off from the local airport, having loaded up with bombs, and bombing the local town. That is a very effective way of obliterating everything, which is what happened in Hargeisa.

The significance of that event was that the chances of Somaliland, the old British Somalia, living with the rest of Somalia were nil. Understandably, the Somalilanders declared independence, and backed up that declaration overwhelmingly in a referendum. Some 13 years later, no one has recognised them. Somaliland and the rump Somalia have gone radically different ways since then. Somaliland has gradually built up its democracy, with local government elections and presidential elections; at the end of next month there will be parliamentary elections. The guns have been taken off the street and the country has lifted itself off the floor by its own efforts with, as was said earlier, the considerable help of the diaspora; it is developing and behaving exactly as we say African states should if they are to receive development assistance.

Because, after about 13 years, no country has recognised Somaliland's independent status, it has not received long-term development assistance. In contrast, the rest of Somalia has remained utterly ungovernable. There has been an empty chair at the United Nations and power rests with a number of warlords whose dominant thought is to retain that illicit power by use of arms. There have been endless conferences, and much aid has been expended in trying to create a state. Recently, in Nairobi, an agreement was reached, from which we hope a Government will develop. However, I have not met anyone who is optimistic that that will last.

Incredibly, the only response of the international community to the efforts of Somaliland has been to tell it to join with Somalia in the boundaries that operated
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 158WH
 
when the country fell apart. Having experienced attempted genocide it must join people like the man called "the butcher of Hargeisa", the governor of Hareisa, General Morgan. No one in this country who had gone through the same experience as the Somalilanders would agree to enter into talks with those who had oppressed them.

The relevance to migration of what I am outlining is considerable. The population of what was previously Somalia is not that of a large country, but Somalis make up one of the largest diasporas not only in this country but in the United States, Scandinavia and, above all, the surrounding countries such as Ethiopia and Kenya. By not supporting Somaliland's wish, properly expressed in a referendum that was approved by international observers, we stimulate emigration, by removing hope. My belief is that good outcomes will come through building on virtue, not by compounding failure.

The people of Somaliland have exercised their right to self-determination. They have created a growing and admirable democracy over a period of 13 years, and we still tell them, "Jump in with your enemies, who are united by only one thing—their dislike of you." That does not make sense.

My contention is threefold. First, the failure to recognise Somaliland has stimulated emigration to neighbouring countries, other countries around the world and this country, with all the distress of disruption to the families, and all the cost to the host countries. We are now forcibly repatriating Somalilanders to a country that we refuse to recognise and fail to help sufficiently. Secondly, the failure to build on strength in Somaliland risks undermining that strength, and gives comfort to the lawless who would undermine Somaliland. In addition, forces such as al-Qaeda are active in Somalia, and the failure to enlist Somaliland in the war on terrorism undermines that moderate, democratic Islamic state.

All that Somaliland is asking for is recognition of the same boundaries that were recognised at the time of independence in 1960. The unfairness of not recognising Somaliland is now going to be compounded because the international community has, after a 50-year war, granted southern Sudan the right to choose to go independent in six years' time, following the peace between north and south. Somaliland expressed its preference for independence 13 years ago, but we do not recognise it. How long must it wait before its right to choose is recognised?

My point is that choosing the wrong foreign policies causes migration and undermines development so that, for all its progress, Somaliland is desperately poor, and its people do not receive the same level of development assistance as other countries, although they have behaved democratically and according to the rules of the international community. Mercifully, there are signs of change. It is possible to see in the attitude of South Africa, whose Foreign Minister we met in Pretoria recently, and in the important bordering state of Ethiopia, a more realistic and supportive stance to Somaliland.

Surely, the key state is the United Kingdom; it is recognised that we have influence in the area. I appeal to the Foreign Office to moderate its action. My view is
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 159WH
 
backed by the International Crisis Group which has, for years, written the most authoritative reports on Somalia and Somaliland. I quote from one on Somaliland:

That would also staunch the flow of migrants, who would see hope in Somaliland, by recognising the responsible way in which the Somalilanders had worked for the last 13 years. I have been trying to illustrate how heavily migration is influenced by political action, and this is an area in which I believe that we should act.

3.31 pm

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): I was not a member of the International Development Committee when the inquiry into migration and development was undertaken. As a consequence, I did not hear or take part in the gathering of the evidence. That said, I did read the report when I was shadow Secretary of State for International Development. I have re-read it, and it strikes me as excellent—one of the best that the Committee has produced. I say, probably cynically, but also realistically, that it was entirely to be expected that a report of this importance, based on serious work undertaken in a cross-party spirit, should be of such obviously little interest to the vast majority of the media. That is a fact of life; it is certainly the way of the modern media. However, the subject that we are considering is of the highest importance and the parameters of the inquiry and the tone of the debate are phenomena from which the whole British political process could learn. Debate about migration is usually of quite a low calibre. However, I can say, because I was not on the Committee at the time of the gathering of the evidence or the publication of the report, that the calibre of this report and of the debate on it is of a higher order.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), who made a typically thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. He followed my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who introduced the report. My starting point is this: immigration should not be seen as a source of embarrassment, a reason for apology or a fact to hide. Immigration, subject to proper but not punitive control, is invaluable to our country. Migration, where it is accompanied by effective use of remittances, decent aid programmes and positive trade policies, can also be part of a package that is very good news for developing countries.

That is worth emphasising at the outset, because the whole tone of the debate about migration is always both negative and defensive. It takes place in an atmosphere generated by media who are preoccupied with creating headlines rather than reporting stories. The worst of our media want to create the impression that immigration is a thoroughly bad thing, that it is either to be blamed on the country that is the source of the immigration, or on the immigrants themselves who are rational economic actors, very properly trying to improve their lot, or that
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 160WH
 
it is the fault of duplicitous, insincere, cowardly, fraudulent or conspiratorial domestic politicians who are not worth a jot. That strikes me as absolutely wrong.

My first observation based on the report relates to recommendation No. 6 in paragraph 17, in which the International Organisation for Migration suggests that a short annual report on migration to the UK from developing countries should be put together and published. That report would provide the factual wherewithal to conduct a decent debate about migration and development in future; such a factual basis has been substantially lacking in the past. Such a report would tell us, in relation to our country, who is coming, what those who come are doing, whether they are remitting and, if so, to what extent, whether they are returning to their countries of origin, on what basis and after what period, and what our Government are doing, in isolation and in co-operation with others, to make migration more development friendly. In short, we need to establish how we are acting, individually and collectively, to ensure that where possible migration becomes an opportunity for all concerned and not a threat to the migrants, the recipient countries or the countries from which the migrants have come.

I should like to make a second suggestion. The recommendation is good, and I am glad that the Committee made it. However, could we not, perhaps under the auspices or with the encouragement of the   Select Committee, secure undertakings from the different political parties in the UK that after the election we will make a genuine attempt to forge a cross-party approach to migration and the development that can flow from it?

When we approach a general election, the quality as well as the intensity of political debate should improve. In practice, more often than not, the opposite is the case. The intensity of debate is heightened, but its quality is not. I do not blame any one political party or any individual or any team of individuals; the pressures are built into the system. I find it rather unsavoury that for some years after an election relatively modest attention is paid to the whole gamut of issues entailed in migration and development but that, as a general election approaches, all of a sudden the debate on those issues is ratcheted up, and there is great focus on the issues. There is great pressure for one party to outdo the other, the media are on our backs, and it becomes a test of who can sound—or be—the toughest. That is not a criticism of any individual or party, it is a fact of the debate on migration to this country. That has been the case for the best part of half a century, and it is regrettable.

After the election, which I hope that my party will win, and the Under-Secretary hopes that his party will win, why can we not have a cross-party inquiry into the sources, process, costs, benefits of and future policy towards migration? Some may say that that sounds far too consensual; after all, we come from separate political parties and our job is to holler away, make our case and rubbish that of the other side. However, I wonder whether that is true.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have been in this House for the best part of three and a half decades; I have been here for only just coming up to eight years. However, my hunch is that if we looked back three and a half decades, we would find that the esteem in which politicians were held was then greater and deference towards them
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 161WH
 
higher. The public standing of politicians is at an all-time low. One reason for that is that the public feel that we have an habitual slanging match, not as a matter of duty, but because we enjoy it and we want to highlight, celebrate and exacerbate the differences between us almost, in the context of immigration, irrespective of the cost to immigrants, recipient countries and countries from which immigrants come. That is a sad state of affairs.

I do not think that the public would scorn the idea of a cross-party inquiry into migration; a lot of decent, fair-minded, intelligent people would welcome it. If opinion-formers took the lead, said that this is something that we could go forward with and endorsed the idea of a royal commission to consider migration with respected voices being heard, just think what might happen to the calibre of debate in this country about migration, development and the future of the developing world. My feeling is that over a period the culture would change.

There is no point in trying to appeal to bigots; it is a worthless exercise. The message falls on deaf ears because those who are motivated by prejudice are not interested in the facts about immigration and development policy. They have a set view and a warped mindset. They believe that we are being drenched with an outpouring that they do not want and we do not need. Whether they call it a flood or a downpour, that is how they view the situation, and they are not interested in any other view. Politicians should try to take the lead in developing a much higher quality of debate.

It may be said that what I am talking about is abstract stuff so far as the report is concerned. The honest answer is that it is, but it is relevant to the political climate. Lest I get into trouble with Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, of which I am privileged, under his distinguished chairmanship, to be a member, I shall move to specific practicalities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : We are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow : I am grateful to you for your forbearance thus far, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to push my luck.

Recommendation 10, set out in paragraph 46 of the Committee's report, states:

to that draft protocol. It continues:

There is a view that if the Government were a signatory, they could improve multilateral regulation. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister on that. My understanding from the Government's reply is that Ministers are saying that they could not commit to undertakings that they would not be able to control in relation to an international protocol, and, notably, that they are concerned that they would be required to act on all recruitment agencies, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. That might be a legitimate practical concern.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 162WH
 

I am slightly less convinced by the Government's argument that the text on compensation is unacceptable and that it would be too expensive. That is only partly true. Even if one thinks that an absolutely open-ended commitment to pay training costs to enable countries to replace sets of workers that it had lost are too great, surely it would be possible for us at least to consider, as I think the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie suggested, that we might contribute at least some of the cost of training some of those staff; it could form a part of a package that we would provide.

The Government may be concerned about making a rhetorical commitment or a binding statement that might require us eventually to sign a blank cheque, but I fully understand that no Government could do that. The Conservative party certainly would not to do so. However, we should at least be prepared to entertain the idea that if a developing country suffers a permanent or short-term loss as the result of a migration of qualified staff—if a gap needs to be filled for five or 10 years—making some allowance for that in our aid package to the country concerned seems a matter of common sense.

I move on to recommendation 15 in paragraph 56. I very much endorse the Committee's saying that the Government, in their enthusiasm to control migration, must take great care not to prevent refugees from gaining asylum. To the Committee's great credit, it distinguishes between immigration and asylum. They are too often lumped together, as though the issues are the same, but they are not. Nevertheless, it is incredibly important that asylum policy should be fairer and quicker. It is also important that we acknowledge today that asylum seekers and immigrants, taken as a whole, contribute more to our economy in financial terms than they take from it. We hardly ever read that in the tabloid newspapers, but it is nevertheless true.

I feel particularly keenly about the issue because my grandparents came to this country on the onion boat. They would not otherwise have had the chance to survive; therefore, neither would my father have had the chance to survive; and I would not have materialised at all—or at least not in this country. I am perfectly prepared to accept that many right hon. and hon. Members—on my side of the House, and most definitely on the other side—would regard that as a blessing to the community. The fact is, however, that I consider myself very fortunate. In framing an asylum policy, we must take the greatest care to ensure that those who are suffering and who should properly have a claim on this country for sanctuary are given the chance of sanctuary. It would be a tragedy if people who felt that they had a moral right to come here—a moral right that would have strong support in the country—were denied that opportunity.

It is also important to bear in mind the facts on Britain's involvement with asylum seekers, which the report acknowledges in paragraph 59 and which were emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Anyone reading the British newspapers could be forgiven for thinking that that the UK was in the front line when dealing with refugees. It is a widespread perception not only among uneducated and uninformed people but among many who are otherwise relatively well informed and highly educated. People think in terms only of this country and do not reflect all that much on the wider scene. The reality, as my hon. Friend
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 163WH
 
helpfully pointed out, is that most of the world's refugees are hosted by under-resourced countries. The idea that most of them come here is simply wrong. We need a better managed and more equitable asylum, protection and migration process across the world. We also need, I believe, migration partnerships with major asylum-generating countries.

Recommendation 21 in paragraph 65 is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred to it; I would like to develop that a little further. The recommendation stresses that we must do our utmost to protect migrant rights. That means doing so through legislation where necessary and also means enforcing that legislation as a matter of course. It means that information about rights and responsibilities should be provided under the terms of that legislation. The Government have highlighted in their response the launch of bilingual leaflets in the United Kingdom, Poland and Lithuania entitled, "Working in the United Kingdom—Know your rights and how to get help and advice." I welcome that; it is a positive step and precisely what the Government ought to be doing.

We should also support robust efforts to tackle exploitation by employers, gangmasters and employment agencies. In that context, the Committee is right to welcome the passage of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. I am, however, conscious of a serious problem with a number of employment agencies. It has been covered to some degree in the media, but I would like to say something more about it.

News reports, which I picked up through the BBC, recently suggested that employment agencies were cheating workers on pay and that particular victims of that cheating and illegal, in some cases, behaviour were migrant workers. A report by the Trades Union Congress said that the growing trend particularly affected migrant workers. A number of agencies are allegedly charging workers inflated meal, transport, accommodation and clothing costs. Worryingly, the TUC has said that many of the victims of that phenomenon have stayed silent because they are either unaware of minimum wage law or scared of losing their jobs. In other words, people are frightened to speak out or do not know that they have the right to do so, or both.

Members of Parliament, critically, have a duty to be voices for the voiceless. Where people are not getting what they are due, it is our responsibility to highlight it. It is not good enough simply to say that the law is there and it is up to people to be aware of it, and that if they are, they can seek redress through the courts and so on. We are talking about people who are, in many cases, struggling to exist. The idea of living in any sense in which we understand it is not on their immediate agenda. They are frequently living at the margins of society, and it seems to me that in the name of the rule of law we have a duty to highlight abuses and to do something about them.

There is an argument about what exactly needs to be done where migrants are victims. The TUC suggests that new regulation is needed. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation is saying that introducing more red tape would simply penalise and restrict British business and should therefore be avoided. Ideally, it should, although that is
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 164WH
 
not an absolute so far as I am concerned. What matters is tackling the abuse. If the existing law can be more robustly implemented and people can be made aware of their rights under it, that should be the priority. However, we need to keep an eye on the situation, and we should not rule out the possibility of taking other action if necessary.

I have two further points, and then I will rest my case. First, in relation to recommendation 58 of the report, the Committee makes the point that

but says:

I strongly endorse that position, which should be the stance of all mainstream political parties. We have to develop a critical mass in the debate that is so strong that it comes to be unacceptable for any mainstream news organisation to argue against such a position.

I think that the presidency of the European Union in 2005 will, as the Committee has said, provide the United Kingdom with an opportunity to promote a positive agenda on migration that takes full account of its development potential. In that context, I confess that I am not as familiar as I should be, and hope that I will      become, with the proposed Commission communication on migration and development, which follows on from Council conclusions adopted in May 2003. I would also be interested to hear rather more from the Minister about the preparations for the launch of a pilot scheme to develop regional protection programmes that are aimed at strengthening protection for refugees in their region of origin. Those will be high priorities for the UK's presidency, and I am sure that I can safely say that, irrespective of which Government are running the show in this country after 5 May.

I conclude by saying that migration to this country is not taking place because life in this country is too good; it is taking place because life in the countries of origin from which migrants come is all too often too bad. We cannot accept responsibility for every deficiency, failure and poor policy in the countries from which migrants come—that would be absurd. Where good governance is involved, there is a responsibility on the part of the country concerned to want to help itself and make the lives of its citizens better. It has a duty to minimise conflict, an obligation to respect human rights and a duty to put health, education and public service programmes before weapons of war. Nevertheless, we have an input to make in pursuing policies on aid, debt relief, the promotion of good governance, building capacity and fostering successful trade by developing countries that can greatly enhance their opportunities.

I think that western trade policies are morally wrong, economically counter-productive and ultimately politically dangerous. They are not dangerous in the
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 165WH
 
sense that they are likely to cause weapons of mass destruction to be unleashed on this country, although it is not impossible. They are dangerous more in the insidious and gradual sense that they eventually conduce to a terrible sense of resentment on the part of countries that feel that they are being denied their legitimate opportunity to compete, grow and improve their own living standards. If, in other words, our wealth is either built or extended on the back of discrimination that exacerbates the poverty of the poor. That is unacceptable, and eventually there will be a political price for the developed, rich world to pay. I do not want that to happen. I want there to be a sound, robust and fair migration and development policy. I want it to be the norm for every mainstream political party to regard it as a priority to develop such a policy. Yes, we must have tough controls on immigration to our country. Yes, we must protect our borders. But we must also remember that a key feature of the best tradition of British policy is not only firmness, but fairness. Too often, we remember the pleas for firmness. We forget the pleas for fairness. I hope that, in its way, the report and our debate will contribute to an altogether better atmosphere for effective policy making to ensure that migration becomes a good tool for international development.

4.1 pm

John Barrett (Edinburgh, West) (LD): I begin by complimenting the three hon. Members who have spoken on their excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Select Committee, made tireless efforts throughout the gathering of evidence and the production of what is an excellent report. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) mentioned the work that he continues to do in Somaliland. We would be forgiven for forgetting that he was, in fact, kidnapped on one visit to Somaliland. As ever, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made an important point when he said that the standard of debate that we have heard today will not be replayed in the press and the media throughout the country. Members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members must ensure that the press have access to this excellent report, so that they cannot say that they do not know the facts.

I want to go further than the hon. Member for Buckingham. He suggested that the parties get together after the election to work on a joint approach to the subject. It is too late. We should not get down into the gutter before the election. The public will have more respect for a party that sticks, after the election, to what it said before the election. If a spokesman of a party joins in a debate of the sort that has been criticised today—I hope that my party does not join in such a debate—it is incumbent on us all to draw attention to the report. We should be raising our game before the election, so that work can continue after the election.

Mr. Bercow : I am rightly rebuked for the modesty of my ambition. I was trying to look ahead to the weeks, months and years that will follow. However, in all seriousness, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right:
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 166WH
 
from this day forward, the debate should be characterised by an observation of facts and an avoidance of prejudice.

John Barrett : I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment.

As we know, migration has always played an important role in the development of many countries and many people. We are examining the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it, but it is worth taking a minute to consider the role that migration has played in development and poverty reduction. In recent and more distant history, we have witnessed great population shifts for various reasons. Recently, that has happened because of famine and drought in Africa. However, population shifts have been caused by opportunity. People left Ireland for the United States. People emigrated to Australia and the Commonwealth through the assisted passage scheme.

The hon. Gentleman told us about the onion boat that brought his grandparents to this country. As a young couple in the 1950s, my parents left the United Kingdom on the assisted passage scheme and emigrated to Australia. For £10, they left for new opportunities and a new life in Australia, where I was born. Due to various circumstances, I might not have been here today, but when I was a young child my parents decided to return to Scotland.

Such matters are interesting. The fact that Scots have travelled throughout the world, whether to take up employment in the medical profession, banking or other sectors, has had a major impact. At the same time, the population of Scotland is falling. In fact, one of the Scottish Parliament's major initiatives is to encourage people to come to Scotland. The population of Scotland is expected by 2009 to have fallen below 5 million for the first time ever. It has become clear that immigration is one of the ways in which Scotland must tackle that problem. When asked recently what the major problems facing Scotland were, the First Minister said that decreasing population was a key issue and that we had to attract people with the necessary skills to our country.

We have heard about the report being unanimous. It is interesting that, when we consider problems, things are often clear. For example, when we have considered famine, drought, HIV and so on, we have found that they are obviously bad. When we consider migration, however, we find that it is neither good nor bad; it is a challenge and opportunity, as other hon. Members have said.

Some of the most unsettling aspects of migration arise when it is forced and involves the vulnerable—often, women and children—sometimes for the worst of all reasons, such as for work in the sex industry. On the BBC news website today, there is coverage of one of the worst possible aspects of migration: pregnant mothers migrating to sell their newborn children. One wonders what has happened to the world when we read that such things are happening. The headline was "Bulgaria's disturbing baby market". Young pregnant mothers travel from Bulgaria to Greece to sell their newborn babies. However, in one of the two cases described on the BBC website, the child was born with disabilities and the prospective adoptive family did not want him.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 167WH
 

That is one of the most despicable aspects of migration, but the article says:

I will return to that issue. It is hard to pinpoint exact statistics or to determine the precise scale of the problem, whether it is drug trafficking or illegal migration.

As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, an excellent aspect of the report was that it debunked many common myths, for example, about the tidal wave of migrants, about the poorest flooding into this country and about migration being just a brain drain. There is not enough time to go into the many aspects of the report, but now when people raise immigration and asylum seekers with me, I will send the report to them. Although it does not deal specifically with asylum in great detail, it is well worth reading.

My constituency is predominantly white European, but people have contacted me to ask what to do about the tidal wave of migrants coming into the country. They do so because of the view in the press that immigrants and asylum seekers are one and the same. In the general public's mind, the two are regarded as one body of people.

As has been said, patterns of migration have remained much the same for the past 30 years. Between 2 and 3 per cent. of the world's population have been involved, although the numbers are growing as the world's population grows. Where migrants live is detailed on page 16 of the report. The top 10 recipient countries are set out and the UK does not feature among them. We are not talking about just a north-south flow. The reasons are many and varied. Migration is voluntary and forced, and there are push and pull factors.

Migration is an option for everyone except the poorest of the poor. We could emigrate at some time in life if we wanted to, but the poorest of the poor are basically stuck at the bottom of the heap. There is a new concept, detailed on page 20, which is called the migration hump. That explains exactly how people have to get off the bottom of the economic ladder before they have the resources to move. Once people get beyond a certain point in life and become relatively affluent, there is no need to go off seeking better fortunes elsewhere.

There is little hard evidence on migration and development, however. Again, that is a good reason for the report's publication. I noticed that in their response the Government accept that there is room for improvement, so that people can get the facts and deal with the challenges ahead. I look forward to the Minister's response and hope that there are other ways to gather detailed statistics.

We have heard much about the impact on our health system and those of other countries. The hon. Member for Banbury recalled our visit to a hospital in Malawi. This month, trained midwives from the New Royal infirmary in Edinburgh are going to the same hospital to teach its midwives aspects of critical care, so that they can deal with high-risk births. The irony is that, once trained, those midwives may find that their
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 168WH
 
opportunities elsewhere increase. As midwives with standard training, they may or may not stay where they are, but with expert training, they might move not to the United Kingdom or the United States, but to South Africa. There is a knock-on effect throughout the world: we are recruiting people from South Africa, and South Africa is recruiting workers from other, less developed countries.

The NHS, in evidence sessions, could not say exactly how many nurses from developing countries were working in the UK, but those figures must be able to be gathered. As I said, there are similar problems with South Africa attracting nurses from poorer countries. Although we have agreed a code of practice, there is much work to be done. The current situation is not tenable. That was brought home to me recently when I visited a nursing home in my constituency. Only one of the care assistants was from Scotland. Most came from eastern Europe.

I fear that the worst aspect of migration is trafficking, smuggling and illegal migration. I am talking about people exploiting the most vulnerable and making large profits. Their activities often involve deception and forced sexual exploitation of the most vulnerable—women and children. It is estimated that 500,000 people a year are smuggled into western Europe, and 2 million people globally. In south-east Asia, the prostitution industry and sex tourism are two of the worst aspects. I am pleased to know that the Government have taken a tough line on those from the UK who have travelled abroad to abuse others through the sex industry.

Oxfam has said that tightening restrictions in the EU could lead to more trafficking. The way forward is an open and transparent system, especially for short-term or seasonal workers, who might be happier to come to this country for a short time if they found out that they could easily go back. The pull that someone's homeland has is amazing. Hon. Members have referred to Somaliland and other pretty well devastated areas, but it is amazing how much people want to go back to their homeland, either during their working life or after they have retired. They may say that their homeland is where they would like to end their days. We must have an open system whereby there is a freer flow for legal migrants.

I agree that refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are treated as one mass. The Select Committee accepts what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said—those groups must be differentiated. Refugees and economic migrants have different reasons for moving. We must be able to offer a safe haven for people whose lives are genuinely threatened. Their situation is different from that of someone who decides arbitrarily to come to this country or to go to the US or another country.

We have seen recent migrant flows in Darfur in southern Sudan. We have recently visited refugee camps of more than 140,000 people and witnessed the impact that those people have had on local resources—food, markets and water. That movement of people internally in some of the most deprived nations of the world is happening as we speak. The report and the Government's response go a long way towards keeping this important item on the agenda. However, it is important that we, as parliamentarians, do not get dragged into the gutter as we approach the general election. The facts are clear for the UK. There are about
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 169WH
 
three refugees per 1,000 of population; in Georgia the figure is 51 per 1,000 and in Liberia it is 87. There are 100,000 Afghan refugees in the EU, compared with 1.4 million in Iran and 2 million in Pakistan.

Many people in this country may feel that we do too much for immigrants or refugees, but the developing world is often of the view that we do not do enough or take our fair share. The figures in the report show that a lot of refugees are not in the richest countries of the world. It has been mentioned that people are open to exploitation by gangmasters, and the way that the control of gangmasters has been dealt with in recent legislation is to the credit of the Government.

I want to touch briefly on remittances. The potential is great. We have heard examples about the scale of remittances—some £93  billion-plus in formal transfers, which exceeds the flow of aid to developing countries. What we must do in this country, working with the international banking sectors, is ensure that transaction costs are reduced. A relatively large chunk of the money can disappear in fees or transaction costs. Many migrants have no bank accounts, and sometimes the places where they try to send their money have no banking system. We must do what we can to make remittances work for poverty reduction.

There is general acceptance that remittances will never lead to massive poverty reduction, but they can make a positive contribution either locally, through a house construction perhaps, or generally through the flow of capital into areas that have relatively low average incomes. Remittances have an important part to play, and I was pleased to find out that there is a team in the Department for International Development looking at financial sector reform and banking systems.

The Government's response to the report was interesting. They have accepted an awful lot of what it suggested and that there is still some distance to go. There is no doubt that a lot of good work has been done. To give credit where it is due, DFID is involved in programmes such as the training of doctors and nurses in Malawi. It has also provided a substantial sum of money. However, there is no point in training doctors and nurses over there if they just come here without putting anything back into their country of origin. We must develop systems, so that there can be a win-win situation. If our health service gains their expertise while they increase their skills and either send remittances back or return to work in their country's health sector, both the countries and the doctor or nurse can benefit. DFID is also involved in a number of livelihood programmes associated with internal migration in countries such as India.

Looking to the future, our presidency of the EU and G8 gives us an excellent opportunity to ensure that we accept the challenges and stand up to be counted. We read nonsensical stories in the press—the story of the hard-working immigrant is not one that they want to see. They want stories about immigrants and/or asylum seekers abusing the system, taking money that they are not entitled to or sneaking into the country.

The Government have done a lot of good work. I hope that whichever party is elected—I make no assumptions about that; Labour and the Conservatives hope to be elected and the Liberal Democrats are very optimistic—we ensure that, when immigration and
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 170WH
 
migration is on the agenda, our standards do not fall to the level that we sometimes see. We must keep the standard of debate as high as it has been this afternoon.

4.19 pm

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): The first thing that I must do is offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, who is involved in work with the Commission for Africa, and his deputy my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). That is why it has fallen to me as the Whip on the shadow international development team to respond to this debate for Her Majesty's Opposition.

Looking around the Chamber, I feel as if you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been involved in an extremely high-priced seminar, organised almost entirely for our benefit. The Minister will have been involved in preparing the Government's response to the Committee; otherwise, this debate has been decorated and contributed to by members of the Committee, and I am grateful for the experience. I have greatly enjoyed listening to the contributions over the last couple of hours, and undertaking the necessary preparation to respond to the debate.

I congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), on what is undoubtedly a serious and weighty piece of work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that the amount of media attention attracted by Committees of the House of Commons seems to be in inverse proportion to the seriousness and weightiness of their work. Of course, my hon. Friend is correct when he says that the media are looking for areas of difference and controversy between the parties. He is also right that Select Committees function best when there is cross-party unanimity, when they seek areas of agreement and do thorough analysis in order to inform our debates in the House of Commons, as well as the wider debate in the country.

The Committee is to be congratulated on its work. The simple, basic point made in the context of this report about the benefits that flow from migration—such as poverty reduction and wider economic benefits for this country—should be constantly restated. It can be seen in the micro-analysis of the benefits that recent migrants bring. I understand that their economic contribution is above average for people in the United Kingdom. The Committee's contribution in identifying such issues and producing evidence is important. It is absolutely necessary that in this House we proceed on the matter on the basis of evidence and of information that, if challenged, can be tested and proved to be correct. I regret to say that there is a relative dearth of information. More work needs to be done to follow up that of the Select Committee, which I hope will, in due course, return to the topic. Indeed, it would be appropriate for other Committees, such as the Home Affairs Committee, to examine the issue as well.

Let me turn to the detail of the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) described himself as an optimist. Some might think that to be a peculiar state of affairs for a native of Edinburgh, when one considers its weather—particularly today of all
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 171WH
 
days—and given the rather quixotic decision of his parents to return there from Australia. I think that it was Robert Louis Stevenson who said that the climate of Edinburgh was so bad that the weak died young and the strong envied them their fate. However, the hon. Gentleman agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham that it is important to seek consensus on this issue, and I certainly support him in that.

Let me comment briefly on the hugely enjoyable philosophical diversion that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham indulged in early in his remarks. I have already endorsed his call to identify aspects of this serious issue on which we can take a bipartisan approach. However, although there is a great deal of agreement between the Government and the official Opposition on policy, there is a great concern about whether that policy is being administered effectively. It is proper to identify whether there are areas in which policy is failing or objectives are not being achieved due to administrative failure. While there is significant agreement between the Government and the main Opposition party on the objectives of immigration policy, there is a critique to be made on how the policy is put into practice. It is necessary, on the back of reports and analysis such as this, that the debate be conducted on the basis of evidence and fact. It should be anchored on the fact that immigration is a beneficial necessity to the United Kingdom, as it is to other countries, including those in the developing world. However, it will have to be subject to necessary controls.

As the Committee makes clear, it is not necessarily an issue about the relationship solely between the developed and the developing world; it is not in one particular direction. The most recent public cause of concern about immigration relates to English migrants into parts of France. There have been protests from French villagers about how the nature of their communities is changing with English incomers. Plainly, that has little to do with the work of this Committee, but it is one tiny example of how this is an extremely complicated and multifaceted issue.

I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham took a rather deterministic view of the attitude of part of our community. He described some people as bigots; as people who would not be prepared to change their views. Given that that came from one of the most gifted rhetoricians in the House of Commons, who has enormous talents of persuasion, that was a rather disappointing view. The way that the climate of opinion can be changed by sensible analysis, and by making the benefits of migration clear, works just as much for people who appear to have a very determined position at some stage as it does for the rest of us.

Operating on the basis of evidence is the appropriate way to go forward; everyone is open to rational argument and evidence. My hon. Friend's comments could be applied to the greatest Briton of all—if one is to believe the BBC's analysis—Winston Churchill. If one considers some of the things that he said in the early parts of the 20th century, he would drop straight into the category to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Bercow : I am glad that my hon. Friend is joining me in this philosophical exploration of the issues. I put
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 172WH
 
it to him that any analysis or study of history must work on the assumption that people are judged by the standards and mores of the time, into which context periodic writings and speeches by the late and great Sir Winston Churchill must be placed. What I meant in my remarks was that there was a small but persistent minority of the population, not least represented in the British National party, who are beyond persuasion.

However, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that the bulk of people, who might not always be fully informed, are open to persuasion. I referred to people who are decent, open-minded and ready to be impressed by the evidence. It is at those people that we should be aiming. We should seek not to negotiate with prejudice but to overcome it.

Mr. Blunt : In that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. However, I would dispute that there is an irreducible minimum. Some of the most effective advocates against racism are people who were members of the BNP at one point; they are exactly the people who have been taken in by the simplicity of arguments and therefore had corresponding attitudes to immigration and migration. They will sometimes make the most effective advocates when they have been exposed to rational, decent argument and persuaded by it.

That is why one must go on making the proper, decent case for the values of immigration, the values that immigrants have brought to British society and the benefits that are enjoyed across the world by the fact that people move between societies for a variety of reasons.

I listened to the contribution of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). As usual, I did so with the greatest respect, given his enormous experience and knowledge in this area. His point about the drain from developing countries and the number of Zambian doctors who have been trained in Zambia and remain there is shocking. That is repeated to an extent, but it is a particular problem relating to health workers in Africa. I want to return to that. I hope that he is being unnecessarily pessimistic about the potential of African agriculture. I am sure that he is correct about the short term, but there are opportunities for it in the medium term, as we have seen in areas where it has received investment.

Tony Worthington : I apologise if I misconveyed what I was trying to say. I am not pessimistic about the potential of African agriculture; it has huge potential. I am, however, pessimistic about the lack of recognition for that potential, as displayed in the developed world's willingness to devote attention to African agriculture. There are huge internal problems with African structures, but I am not pessimistic about the potential of African agriculture.

Mr. Blunt : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I hope that my optimism about the potential of African agriculture will, in some microscopic way, have encouraged him.

We come to this debate on the basis of our own experiences, and I want to use a personal experience to illustrate a number of the issues that the report addresses and the complications that flow from them. A few years
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 173WH
 
ago, my wife and I took on a cleaning lady to do a few hours' work a week to help us at home. She was a Filipina; indeed, it turned out during a discussion with her that she was a Filipina nurse. She was extremely concerned about her immigration status and she was initially rather unwilling to discuss it when she found out that I was a Member of Parliament. The long and the short of it was that I eventually sat her down and had a chat with her about exactly what her circumstances were.

Obviously, this lady did not want to be cleaning our house; her objective was to have a proper job in the United Kingdom health service. She had fallen into the hands of people in the Philippines who offered her the opportunity to come to the United Kingdom. For a fee of $5,000, which was all she was able to get together, she obtained a new passport, which happened to be an entirely illicit document. She arrived in the United Kingdom on a student visa, which was not going to help her to find proper work, even if it had been in the correct passport. She had, therefore, been given the wrong visa in an illegal passport and had been defrauded of all her means in the Philippines in the process. Her objective in coming to the United Kingdom was to earn enough to remit money back to put her son through university.

The long and the short of the story was that I helped her find out what the rules were. In that respect, the remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham about the necessity for the rules to be clear so that people can understand them is vital. It took me, as a Member of Parliament, a considerable time to discover exactly how the rules applied to a lady in such circumstances. They enabled her to go home and provided her with the air fare to do so. In order to have the funds to look after her son at university, she had to reapply to an entry clearance officer with her real passport, which had to be obtained from her home in the Philippines. She had to obtain the correct visa, so that she could come back to the United Kingdom and go on a course that enabled her Filipino nursing qualification to be acceptable in the United Kingdom. She is now back in the UK and working as a nurse, while remitting money home to put her son through university in Manila. That would appear to be a huge advantage, of course, until one discovers that he is studying politics, which may or may not be a huge benefit. However, he is getting a tertiary education that he would not have been able to afford if his mother had not been a migrant and had not been prepared to come to the United Kingdom to contribute to our health services.

The Philippines is a case in point. I understand that it produces a deliberate excess of trained nursing staff in order to help the economy to be funded by remittances. The argument about what happens in the Philippines is different from the one that applies, as I understand it, to most of Africa, but encapsulated in that one small example of migration, which greatly informed me, were the pulls, the pushes and the benefits to the Philippines. It is unarguable that huge benefit was to be gained in every conceivable direction from that one case of migration, except of course at the beginning of the process when a criminal disaster that befell the lady resulted in all her wealth being stolen from her by traffickers. That shows that it is vital for the United Kingdom to have clear rules.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 174WH
 

I hope that within these walls and within the rather limited observation offered by the debate, we can have a sensible commentary on the various policies being offered to meet the objectives that I believe both major parties share. The opportunity for a fairer policy through a more controlled system of quotas and numbers is a better way to proceed than the rather uncontrolled effect of our current policy.

I welcome the report as an important contribution in this neglected area of migration and development. Giving evidence to the Committee, the Secretary of State said that the link between migration and development has been neglected, and that our understanding of the importance of migration to the poor in developing countries is at about the same stage as our understanding of the vital links between trade and development was 10 years ago. I agree.

The importance of migration to development is highlighted by the figures, to which hon. Members have referred, in the report. The informal transfers of remittances amount to some $300 billion year, which is significantly greater than the figure that UN identifies as necessary to meet its millennium development goals. Remittances show how hugely important migration and poverty reduction are. I agree with the Committee's recommendation that the Government should provide more information about who is coming to the UK, where they come from, what they do, to what extent they are sending funds back to their home country and how many of them return to their home country after working in the UK.

The report highlights our lack of an accurate picture of the nature of migration to the UK and its consequential impact on developing countries as well as on the UK. As the International Organisation for Migration suggests, greater knowledge of migration flows would help us to understand the impact of migration better. A more ordered and organised immigration system in the UK would greatly assist us in managing and understanding migration better than we do at present.

The report concludes:

The General Medical Council register shows that the number of non-UK qualified doctors joining the register has increased enormously in the past few years, and that the trend rate of non-UK doctors joining the register is even faster than the trend rate of the growth in the NHS work force. Although non-UK qualification includes those qualified in other developing countries, it is widely accepted that a significant number of those doctors have come from developing countries. Zambia is but one of the many dozens of developing countries that are affected by this. It is the same with nursing, as we heard in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury of the hospital in Lilongwe.

It is important that the code of practice is adhered to, and that progress is made. The Government's response to the Committee's recommendation concentrates on the push factors for health care workers. However, I am
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 175WH
 
not certain whether it deals sufficiently with the pull factors attracting health workers to the UK and the steps that the Government could take to tackle those.

I recognise that the code of practice was strengthened at the end of last year, and that it is now extended to temporary staff in the independent health care sector. I hope that the policy followed by the Government until 5 May, and by their successors, will lead to a reduction in developing world recruitment. There are some sensible recommendations in the report on that aspect, and about the need to invest in training in the developing world and the necessary links between the international development budget and trade.

I am not sure whether I entirely agree with recommendation 58, which makes a link between border controls and migration. I note that the Government reply states:

I agree about that; the totality of the relationship between the United Kingdom and other countries is relevant. I do not think that the Government should take the view on principle that they will not use the levers available to them, so as to bring about necessary and beneficial improvements in the relationship with the relevant countries, and with respect to migration. It is important, with reference to codes of practice and the push and pull factors that affect migration, that the Government should use all the tools at their disposal.

I commend the Committee on a serious piece of work on a serious and important issue. The importance of migration to the ability to tackle poverty reduction is plainly enormous, on the basis of the statistics identified and published by the Committee. I look forward to further work on the matter by the Committee and other Select Committees, so that we can proceed on the basis of sound evidence and more information. That would help in bringing about what we all want; policy on which there is more agreement, certainly about policy objectives. There will always be differences—that is the stuff of politics—about how to achieve those objectives, but if we can agree about the objectives and reach more agreement about the analysis underpinning them, so much the better.

4.43 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas) : I join the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) in praising the three previous speeches. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and his Committee have done the House a service in producing what is undoubtedly a comprehensive and impressive consideration of migration and development issues. The hon. Gentleman's opening speech and the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) did the House a service in exploring the issues raised and suggestions made by the Committee.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 176WH
 

I shall try to do justice to the quality of the debate. First, I want to join other hon. Members in paying tribute to people who have migrated to the UK, for the quality and engagement that they bring, the diversity that they offer and the quality of the work that they do in our public services and the private sector. I know that the garages in north-west London could not function without the contribution of the many Tamils who have migrated to the UK. The health service could not function in north-west London without the contribution of the many Gujarati GPs or the Filipina nurses who serve in our local acute general hospital.

We need fully to comprehend the contribution made by so many of those who migrate to the UK if we are to challenge the prejudice that surrounds the immigration debate; the hon. Member for Buckingham rightly made it clear that we should continue to challenge it. He said that those in the British National party—and, I would add, the United Kingdom Independence party and Veritas—too often bring such prejudice to the debate.

The report and the debate have provided a valuable opportunity to dispel some of the myths that surround migration, to which the hon. Member for Banbury alluded. It is clear that internal and south-south movements of people are the largest forms of migration, and that is where the greater poverty impacts are likely to be. It is also true that it is those who can afford it and who have the right skills, as opposed to those with no skills, who are more likely to migrate to more developed countries to take up employment. The Committee's report also made it clear that migration offers an important livelihood strategy for poor men and women, and we should see it as a challenging but beneficial aspect of the process of globalisation.

The hon. Member for Buckingham made an interesting reference to the Committee's recommendation for an annual report on migration, as suggested to it by the International Organisation for Migration. The Government recognise that that could well be particularly useful; we will consider it as part of the forthcoming review by National Statistics of the control of immigration statistics Command Paper. We have selected a preferred contractor to undertake that work, and I hope that we can sign the contract and get on with the work in the not-too-distant future. The hon. Gentleman's idea of a cross-party dialogue on migration is interesting, too. As to whether others would want to take part in such a debate, I am afraid that I am a pessimist, but there will be a number of opportunities to test his theories in the coming six weeks.

At an international level, we are following with some interest the work of the Global Commission on International Migration. We are part of a core group of countries that the commission is consulting on the emerging themes of its work. The Department is contributing financially to supporting the commission's consultation with African representatives; that will take place in Cape Town later this month. The commission is due to present its report to the UN Secretary-General later this year, and its suggestions will feed into our high-level dialogue on international migration, which will take place at the UN General Assembly in 2006. Inevitably, such debates provide opportunities for politicians in all UN member countries to explore the issues.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 177WH
 

A further opportunity to test the hon. Gentleman's theory will come when we consult on the policy paper on migration and development on which the Department is working. I hope that we can launch that soon and consult a variety of people, including Members of Parliament who are interested in these issues, and publish our conclusions in the not-too-distant future.

Many hon. Members have made reference to the importance of migration in tackling poverty, even though that is not explicitly included in the millennium development goals. The hon. Member for Reigate rightly alluded to the huge sums produced through remittances, which vastly outweigh international development assistance. The Committee rightly made it clear that we need to continue to look at the quality of data available and properly to consider the evidence base on the causes and consequences of migration. Across Government, we will continue to develop our capacity to produce and work with better information, and that, I hope, will feed a more informed and temperate debate than those of recent weeks.

As several hon. Members have said, migration can relieve labour market pressures, increase trade and foreign direct investment in developing countries, and allow individuals to learn new skills and to support their families at home through remittances—to help someone to go to university or, more generally, to help those without other incomes. It can also mobilise the diasporas to engage in the development of their countries of origin. Development in areas such as governance, democracy, effective civil society and gender equality can help to ensure that people's decisions to migrate out of their country are made on a more informed basis, rather than out of desperation. We need to do more; all our country's programmes seek to focus on how to continue to promote more effective government in countries that produce many people who want to migrate.

Some hon. Members have talked about skilled migration, highlighting the apparent unfairness of this country providing aid on one hand while recruiting trained personnel, particularly medical personnel and teachers. We are acutely aware of the potentially damaging effect of the so-called brain drain, where skilled migrants such as those in health and education leave developing countries in search of a better life. However, international migration is just one factor, and not necessarily the most important one, that affects public services in developing countries. Arguably, the most important factor is under-investment in health and delivery systems in such countries, coupled with the undoubtedly devastating effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The UK was the first country to produce guidance on the international recruitment of health workers, and it remains one of the few countries to have produced such guidance. Codes of practice, particularly that of the Department of Health, prevent the targeting of developing countries for such recruitment. We have spent £560 million in the past five years to support the development of health services in Africa, including the training of medical personnel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie rightly raised the issue of capacity in developing countries. That is the biggest single issue
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 178WH
 
affecting countries' responses, particularly to the AIDS epidemic, where once it was the price of anti-retroviral drugs. There have been huge reductions in the price of drugs, and the main issue is now how to develop capacity in health systems and across Governments generally to get those drugs to where they need to go. If the issue of capacity is to be tackled in countries such as those in sub-Saharan Africa—where the crisis is most acute—factors such as low pay and poor working conditions in developing countries must be dealt with, and it must be recognised that there are often security concerns in regions in which there is conflict or economic instability. Understandably, perhaps, that backdrop against the prospect of better pay and a whole series of career and training opportunities in developed countries motivates people to leave to look for other opportunities.

Some hon. Members mentioned Malawi. I accept that, in a sense, Malawi is at the epicentre of the crisis of capacity. It loses more health workers because of HIV/AIDS than from migration, and more trained nurses because of HIV than it can replace. There is an innovative programme in Malawi that, although not a pilot, is a first of its kind. We have contributed £100 million to that programme, which aims to double the number of nurses and triple the number of doctors in Malawi over the next six years, precisely to deal with capacity. That will, on occasions, involve topping up the salary of many of those who will work in the health sector, and I hope that it will begin to deal with the issue of health service capacity, to which hon. Members rightly alluded.

We also need to recognise that there is, in a number of developing countries, a reservoir of people who have been trained as nurses and who are not working as nurses at the moment. South Africa, for example, has an estimated 7,000 health professionals overseas, but there are also 35,000 inactive or unemployed nurses in the country, too, despite a huge vacancy rate, which again suggests that there is more that countries can do, with the support of the international community, to engage those who have been trained in their country.

A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Banbury, asked whether the code of practice was strong enough. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health launched a toughened-up code on international recruitment. That revised code will ensure, for example, that all independent-sector companies providing NHS care will sign up to the code through stipulations in their NHS contract. The loophole that in the past allowed trusts to recruit temporary and locum staff from developing countries has been closed, and agencies that supply domestic staff to the NHS will also be covered for the first time, which extends the code to some 200 extra recruitment agencies.

I should put it on the record that the NHS does not actively recruit from any country that does not wish to be recruited from. We have Government-to-Government agreements with India, Spain and the Philippines, which state that they are content for the UK to recruit health care professionals from their countries. I accept that Spain is not a developing country, but the Philippines and India most definitely are.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 179WH
 

A series of other recommendations were made in the report, one of which—the need to ensure that we are considering the special needs of refugees—has not featured particularly strongly in this debate. I am sure that a number of hon. Members have seen the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made to strengthen the international humanitarian system, not least of which is a new £1 billion fund for humanitarian assistance and strengthened powers for UN humanitarian assistance co-ordinators.

Many hon. Members focused on remittances, on which we are working with others—not least the World Bank and the inter-agency remittances task force—to increase the information that we have about their nature. We recently commissioned the opinion poll company NOP to conduct the first of a potential series of household surveys on remittances in the UK and receiving countries. The first, which we hope will start around the end of March, will focus on the Bangladeshi community and will produce data on flows, volumes, channels and preferences of remittances to partner countries.

As one or two hon. Members may be aware, we also initiated a UK remittances products survey to help those who have migrated to the UK to understand better the level and types of remittances products that they can use. The publication of that report is due, and I hope that it will happen towards the end of March. However, very shortly I expect the initial basic information contained in it to be available at www.sendmoneyhome.org, should hon. Members wish to check the web. We have also commissioned two reports on the impact of remittances on development and are developing partnerships with Bangladesh and Nigeria to explore further practical ways to improve remittance flows to those countries.

One interesting part of the Committee's work was the session, to which the hon. Member for Banbury alluded, that it held in Southwark town hall with the Sierra Leonean community. I accept that we need to do more as a Department in particular and as a Government in general to engage the diaspora, not only on remittances but more broadly on our country assistance plans. We have begun to do that, consulting the Bangladeshi community about the aid programme in Bangladesh, for example. We have also agreed a strategic grant agreement with Connections for Development, a network of black and ethnic minority organisations that aims to mobilise civil society for action on development. We can engage it to talk to the diaspora.

The hon. Member for Buckingham will be interested to know that we will seek to use our presidency of the European Union to continue to promote a positive agenda on migration and development. He alluded to the Commission's preparing a new communication on migration and development, which follows the Council conclusions last May. I expect it to present an action plan to launch a pilot scheme designed to increase protection for refugees in their region of origin. I expect
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 180WH
 
it similarly to produce an action plan to combat trafficking, which is another priority for our presidency. We hope to secure progress on those issues.

Mr. Bercow : Interventions are always difficult, and none of us is psychic: it may be that the Minister was about to address the issue that I intend to raise, but it is equally perfectly possible that he was not.

In the light of the TUC report on the levy of charges on workers, including notably on migrant workers, and on the payment of those workers below the minimum wage, does the Minister know of any contact between his Department and the Department of Trade and Industry about investigating those allegations and deciding what, if any, Government action is needed to combat the problem?

Mr. Thomas : As the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know, there is regular contact with the DTI, but I will check for him and write to him on his specific question.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention allows me to touch on what else we can do to support migrant rights. As our response to the report highlighted, a series of language and citizenship courses is already available to support migrants, and the Home Office has published a refugee integration strategy to explore some of the issues involved in supporting the rights of migrants. He alluded to our seeking to work with the new member states to explain the various rights available. The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is an important piece of legislation in helping us to prevent the exploitation of those who migrate to the UK.

Before the hon. Gentleman asked his helpful and interesting question, I was going to touch further on points that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West made about trafficking. We need to continue to bear down on those who traffic people into the UK. We have introduced legislation to try comprehensively to criminalise trafficking. A new offence of trafficking for exploitation, which includes trafficking for forced labour and removal of organs for example, was included in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. That carries a heavy 14-year maximum penalty.

Hon. Members may be interested to know that between April 2003 and April 2004 there were some 38 successful convictions for organised immigration crime, including for those involved in human trafficking, people smuggling and related activities. However, if we are going to be truly effective on human trafficking, we need to get right our prevention measures at source. For that reason, we have given some £70,000 to Anti-Slavery International for raising awareness of the abuses suffered by victims of trafficking and for further remedial action in west Africa.

Lastly, I do not accept the points made by the hon. Member for Reigate about the Government's immigration strategy. We have a balanced immigration policy. It is important that we meet the challenge of achieving and retaining public confidence in the system—on that I agree with the hon. Gentleman—by admitting only those whom we genuinely need and can absorb, by taking only our fair share of refugees and by
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 181WH
 
preventing those who do not meet our criteria from getting or remaining here. In that context, the recent strategy published by my hon. Friends at the Home Office is the way forward. Suggestions that people should be sent to islands or that arbitrary quotas should be imposed—suggestions that do not state who would and would not stay—have not been terribly helpful contributions to the debate.
 
24 Feb 2005 : Column 182WH
 

Today's debate has been useful and important. Again, I commend the work of the Committee in going as thoroughly as it did through the issues. I also commend hon. Members on both sides who have contributed, which, we can all agree, has been useful and informative.

Question put and agreed to.

 IndexHome Page