The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Browne,
Mr. Jeremy
(Taunton)
(LD)
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann
(Keighley)
(Lab)
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Farron,
Tim
(Westmorland and Lonsdale)
(LD)
Green,
Damian
(Ashford)
(Con)
Hillier,
Meg
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department)
Jones,
Helen
(Warrington, North)
(Lab)
Lucas,
Ian
(Wrexham)
(Lab)
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew
(Croydon, Central)
(Con)
Pritchard,
Mark
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
Salter,
Martin
(Reading, West)
(Lab)
Sheridan,
Jim
(Paisley and Renfrewshire, North)
(Lab)
Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
Gwynne,
Andrew
(Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
European
Standing
Committee
Tuesday 17
July
2007
[Hywel
Williams
in the
Chair]
Global Approach to Migration
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg
Hillier):
It is a pleasure to address this scrutiny
Committee. It is my first such Committee and I hope that we can have an
interesting debate about our approach to migration and about the
suggestions in the documents about mobility partnerships and circular
migration. It would be worth setting out the international nature of
migration and why it requires international solutions in which the EU
is clearly a major partner for us.
Roughly in my
lifetimefrom 1960 to 2005the number of people living
abroad from their home
country
Mr.
Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): Youre not that
old.
Meg
Hillier:
I am a bit younger than that. The hon. Gentleman
is kind and, indeed, accurate.
We have seen the number of
people living abroad increase from 75 million to 191 million in that
45-year period. By 2020, there will be another billion people in the
worldwide labour market. We are dealing with a growing global situation
that will make a difference to our policies and those of Europe, so it
is vital that we work with our European neighbours on the matter. In
the UK, we have received 1.6 million migrants in the past 15 years, and
they have contributed to growth of 15 to 20 per cent. in our economy
between 2001 and 2005. They play a vital role, and it is important that
we manage migration effectively with our economic interests in
mind.
Let us consider
some of our European partners: in the 15 years before 2005, 4 million
migrants were received by Spain and Germany. The USA received 15
million. What is happening in the UK is merely a microcosm of what is
happening across the world. Of course, our visitors are not just
migrants who come to settle and work. We have seen 32 million tourists
in the past year, spending around £15 billion. The movement of
people is a vital economic part of our work in government and benefits
the economy in general.
In June, we published a
document called Managing Global Migration, which sets
out our international migration strategy. It puts migration at the
heart of our international relationships and I commend it to the
Committee as a good and clear read and a good summary of the work that
we are doing. We will deliver the strategy through stronger borders,
issuing a number of biometric visas to people who are entering the
country, and fast-track asylum decisions, which we are now achieving
within six months for new applicants. At
that point, people are either deported if they are not successful, or
welcomed to contribute to our country if they are. We will ensure that
we enforce compliance with our immigration rules. Boosting
Britains economy is another major objective. The points-based
system that we will introduce is key to that. We will introduce five
strands for entering the country, rather than the more than 100 strands
that there are now. That might be linked to circular
migration.
Managing
Global Migration and the EU approach provide a comprehensive
and balanced approach to migration. We rely strongly on our EU
partners, as I have said. I will not talk in my brief opening statement
about the accession countries, but I am sure that they will come up in
the debate as we have interesting relations with the A8 countries and
with the A2 countriesRomania and Bulgaria.
We welcome in general the
proposed extension of the global approach to migration in the EU to the
east and south-east. It reflects a shared agreement between member
states effectively to manage the EUs borders as part of the
strategic framework of which we are part. It is in all our interests to
identify and tackle migration issues, both illegal and legal.
We will maintain our focus on
Africa, because estimates suggest that Africas population will
increase from 642 million in 1990 to 2 billion by 2050. We know that
that will have an impact. A lot of AfricansI speak with some
feeling because of the experience from my constituencyalready
contribute greatly to Britain. We will see that flow around the world,
and there are other examples around Europe, too. We will maintain our
European Union lead in the east Africa migration routes initiative, on
which we work closely with countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt and
Libya to disrupt flows of illegal migrants before they reach the EU and
the UK. It also has a benefit in tackling human
trafficking.
Mr.
Browne:
On that
point
The
Chairman:
Order. The Minister cannot take interventions
during a statement.
Meg
Hillier:
I am glad to know that my inexperience is
reflected elsewhere, Mr. Williams.
I am pleased to announce today
that the UK has been selected for EU funding of approximately €1
million. That will pay for a long-term project on which we will work
with our EU partners and African states. The project will include
activity to tackle illegal migration along the east Africa migration
routes and is a significant move forward. We are also an active
participant in another project, which has secured €1.7 million
from the EU and which responds to irregular transit through Ukraine.
Although the project is led by the Czech Republic, we play a key
role.
In Britain,
we are also analysing the impact of migration through the migration
advisory committee and the migration impacts forum, which had its first
meeting in April, and is already beginning to do some useful work. It
reflects various sectoral and geographical interests throughout the
country in relation to the impact of migration. If we are serious about
embracing migrants, we must recognise the positive, negative and
challenging impacts that they have on some of our public
services.
I shall touch briefly on the two
issues discussed in the EU papers. The Commission proposed mobility
partnerships for discussion, but the Government are unclear about their
added value; they require much more consideration by member states and
the Commission. We support and engage with countries to secure
co-operation on such issues, and in particular, we welcome initiatives
that expand co-operation on the return of illegal migrants. However, we
must be careful not to reward so-called bad behaviour. There are a
number of pros and cons to those models, which I am sure we will
discuss.
On circular
migration, again we would welcome a fuller debate among EU members, but
our new points-based system, which will roll out from next year, will
bring in five categories into which circular migration can fall. We are
not clear about the benefits of a separate system of circular migration
outwith our five-strand points-based system. However, I shall be happy
to hear Members questions and answer them, and I hope that we
will have an interesting debate.
The
Chairman:
We now have until half-past 5 for questions,
which should be brief and asked one at a time. There will be plenty of
time for them.
Damian
Green (Ashford) (Con): Before I ask my first question, may
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on her elevation?
I did not have the chance to do so during Home Office questions. I
welcome her to the bed of roses that is immigration policy.
The Minister touched briefly on
the papers before us, but I am still not quite clear about something.
Do the Government think that immigration policy should lie essentially
at the national or at the European
level?
Meg
Hillier:
We certainly believe in working with Europe, and
we have an interest in ensuring that the European borders are strong,
but we opt into measures only when they are in the national interest.
It is important that the UK maintain its own border controls and
strength in that area. There is no single magic solution to tackling
migration, and by highlighting the figures on population change
globally, we recognise that there is an interest in working together.
Our work on the African migrant routes, for example, is a shared
interest among different EU partners.
It is worth mentioning that the
expanded Europe is a growing area, and on some migration routes there
are different issues for different European partners. In the east, they
have slightly different issues, which must be addressed, but we must
work together on certain issues. Organisations such as Frontex and
Eurodac help to ensure that, for example, asylum seekers are picked up
if they have applied in one country prior to applying in another. Those
are important areas where such co-operation is vital, but they do not
negate the need for our own strong border
controls.
Mr.
Browne:
I already have cause to be grateful for your
guidance, Mr. Williams, and may I also welcome the Minister
to her post? I was too hasty in trying to do so earlier, but now I have
the opportunity.
The Minister mentioned
co-operation with countries in east Africa, but there seems to be a
particular issue with people coming from or through countries in
western Africa and attempting to access Europe, particularly through
the Canary islands and other off-posts of Spain and Portugal. What do
the Government propose to do with our European partners, and how will
the measures help to reduce or even eradicate that serious illegal
migration and humanitarian
problem?
Meg
Hillier:
In the end, we have to ensure that we map where
people are coming from. Organisations such as Frontex, which helps to
bring together the different border authorities from around Europe, can
consider such issues and tackle them across countries. It is clearly
not something that the UK can resolve alone. There is good work going
on in Europe on examining the different routes in that people are
using, legally and illegally, and ensuring that there is relevant
support.
On mobility
partnerships, by which people come through from particular countries,
we need to be clear about what the benefits would be to us in the UK of
coming to a deal with any country. We remain concerned that the matter
is not as straightforward as coming to an arrangement whereby those
countries agree to take returnees more readily, for example. We need to
ensure that we provide opportunities for people to come legally, and
work with European partners to ensure that information is going out in
the countries from which people are known to be coming. We need to
highlight the fact that illegal migration is a problem. We need to be
alert to trafficking problems, and that is also where European
co-operation comes in.
Mr.
Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): I, too, give my
heartiest congratulations to the Minister on her well deserved
promotion. She referred to her constituency experience, and I would be
interested to know the comparisons that she can make with the other
countries that she mentioned as having heavy migration flows and the
impact that that has had on their capital cities. Does she agree that
the flows are particularly burdensome on London, given that, as far as
I understand it, migration flows to London are more than double those
to the rest of the
country?
For the
purposes of saving time, I should like to pose two further
questions.
The
Chairman:
One at a
time.
Mr.
Pelling:
Thank you for your guidance, Mr.
Williams.
Meg
Hillier:
The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on
these issues in the past, but I fear that I must disagree with him
about the burdensome nature of migration to London. In fact, the
figures that I have highlighted show that the economy grew by 15 to 20
per cent. over the four-year period to 2005 because of the migrants
coming into this country. Through the EU, we are accepting people to
fill particular jobs as a priority. If the EU is unable to fill those
jobs, we will accept other people. We also have an asylum route, and
people who become refugees have the right to work. I am not sure whether
the hon. Gentleman was referring to legal migrants coming in to work,
to EU migrants or to refugees. They all play a
role.
There are issues
to consider about the impact on public services, and that was exactly
why we set up the migration impacts forum. It is fair to say that we
are ahead of the game, Europe-wise, in examining the matter. We have a
real desire to embrace the contribution that migrants can make but, at
the same time, to be realistic about the issues that they raise and to
ensure that Government and local policies can tackle any problems
caused by the flow. We want to lay out where we think the pressure will
come, although, as the figures that I have highlighted show, it is
difficult to predict. It is early days to say what the forum will come
up with, but I have great hope that it will contribute to the
formulation of public policy and ensure that any tensions are dealt
with at an early
stage.
I am now
responsible for refugee integration, and we need to do a better job of
ensuring that, once somebody has come through the asylum route and been
given refugee status, they are given every opportunity to get into
work, which is what most of them want and are capable of, and ensure
that they can contribute effectively to their family and society. That
is something on which there will be further
work.
Damian
Green:
I should like to ask the Minister about a statement
on page 20 of the bundle, in the second of two paragraphs, both of
which, slightly eccentrically, are numbered 14. The Government say that
they will
resist the
Commissions proposal to have exploratory contacts with a
limited number of countries potentially interested in mobility
partnerships.
I just
want to ask a practical question about the effect of resisting that
proposal. Will that stop the Commission from implementing the proposal,
or is it simply an expression of
opinion?
Meg
Hillier:
We have opt-in rights to such measures. We are
very much at the early stages of discussion about mobility
partnerships, and wider political questions may come into play. We
believe that some of the issues suggested by the Commission could be
dealt with without mobility partnershipsfor example, support on
technical grounds and support to make sure that states outside the EU
are being brought up to speed on best practice in dealing with issues.
Will the hon. Gentleman intervene to make clear the exact paragraph to
which he referred? I did not have it in front of me when he mentioned
it.
The
Chairman:
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman
cannot intervene on an answer to a question. However, he can ask
another
question.
Damian
Green:
I am grateful, Mr. Williams. I was
talking about the fourth and fifth line of the second of the two
paragraphs, both numbered 14; I understand the Ministers
confusion.
I agree with everything that the
Minister has just said about what would be desirable in respect of
mobility partnerships. I am simply seeking to ascertain the effect of
the British Governments resistance to the Commissions
proposal. Does that mean that the Commission cannot proceed with those
exploratory contacts, or is it simply a case of our Government
expressing an opinion and the Commission being able to do what it likes
anyway? I seek to clarify that simple factual
point.
Meg
Hillier:
The Commission can go ahead with mobility
partnerships, although we do not necessarily sign up to them.
Individual countries will have to make their determinations. Currently,
Austria is sceptical and Portugal is particularly enthusiastic; I
believe that France is enthusiastic as well. Different countries have
different arrangements; the documents seek to put things on a more
formal footing across the EU. However, as I said, we believe that there
is a lot more room for discussion. We need to consider what the
documents say about the legal routes that we allow through our own
migration policy and see whether they fit well with them. That is
another of our
concerns.
Mr.
Browne:
The Minister mentioned Frontex, whose offices in
Warsaw I had the opportunity to visit earlier this year. Will she
answer these two halves of the same question about the service that it
provides? First, does she think that the budget of that organisation is
adequate to meet the scale of its task? The 27 countries that
constitute the European Union today have a large collective border,
which is extremely porous in some parts.
The second half of the question
is about whether the Minister regards the United Kingdom as being
hampered in its ability to contribute to Frontex because we are not a
signatory to the Schengen agreement. I happen to think that we should
not sign up to it, but many other EU countries regard it as
inappropriate for us to take a leading role, given that we have not
signed up to that collective
agreement.
Meg
Hillier:
Let me take the second point first. The UK is not
hampered in its ability to contribute to Frontex. We play a role in it
now; Frontex provides a vital co-ordinating link between the various
border and immigration agencies. In many respects, we are leading the
way with some of our work with our border controls and our work in
moving towards the five-band entry system, biometric visas and so on.
The Frontex budget is sufficient at the moment. It is a new body, and
we will keep a close eye on it, but it is doing useful work. Because of
the global situation, we might need to look at it again in future, but
we are convinced that its budget is
adequate.
Mr.
Pelling:
I refer to paragraph 2.13 on page 11. I have
noted well the Under-Secretarys comments about privatisation of
work, and I should be grateful for the Ministers comments on
the rationale for putting particular emphasis on work with African
countries. I imagine that the good work that is being done by the
European Union to encourage prosperity within the region, such as to
act as a disincentive for the strong migration flows that there have
been from those
countriesI must be giving the wrong reference, because everybody
seems to be confused about what I am referring to. The document states
that
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office (Joan Ryan)
tells us that the Government welcomes the Commissions efforts
to extend the application of the Global Approach. She cautions,
however, against allowing the extension to dilute work with African
countries.
She mentions
particularly a desire not to give the highest priority to work in Asian
countries. I am interested to know the rationale behind that approach.
I am sure that it is very good indeed.
Meg
Hillier:
I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be referring
to a different document, because I cannot find paragraph 2.13 on the
page 11 that I have in front of me.
The Chairman: The
Minister could write to the hon. Gentleman.
Damian
Green:
I am not going to refer to a page; I shall just
read out what I want to say to make things easier, particularly for the
Minister. The Commission says that Serbia and Montenegro have yet to
enact basic asylum laws and should be encouraged to do so. Can the
Minister tell us whether the Government are taking active steps to
ensure that those countries have proper asylum systems in place? This
debate is particularly timely because this House is shortly going to
consider a statutory instrument in which the Government propose that
Serbia and Montenegro are safe countries to which people can be removed
from this country. Clearly the status of their asylum laws is important
to us in our consideration not just of this document but of other
matters that will come before us in the next few
days.
Meg
Hillier:
Clearly, it is vital that we should have common
ground across Europe on asylum measures, and we have some good
partnerships such as that on the Eurodac database, which means that
people cannot apply for asylum in different countries. We also have
clear rules about making sure that people who seek asylum in Britain
and are found to have to be returned to a safe country of origin in
Europe are returned there. There are also numerous other measures that
necessitate, for example, people being sent home on shared flights. As
part of the accession programme, Serbia and Montenegro must put those
asylum measures into place; they are part of the package of being a
member of the European Union. With some support from the EU, they will
be able to do that.
Mr.
Browne:
The owners of a number of residential care homes
in my constituency have complained to me about the Home Office placing
more burdensome restrictions on the right to enjoy leave to remain of
non-EU nationals, in one case the restrictions affect nursing staff
from the Philippines and in another a nursing staff member from Zambia.
I am concerned, because there are huge labour shortages in that sector
in my constituency and, I suspect, in most others. The Government might
unintentionally, and against the spirit of the Ministers
opening remarks, be placing unnecessary restrictions on the people who
operate in such sectors. I wondered whether that was something
that the Minister could look at, and whether she agrees with me that
although the European Union needs to be careful about managing
migration, it should not do so in a way that makes it harder for people
in my constituency to care for the
elderly.
Meg
Hillier:
I am puzzled by the hon. Gentlemans
comments. EU nationals have freedom to travel and we have to accept EU
nationals to fill jobs as a priority. There is already clear evidence
of an increase in the number of people from some of the A8 countries in
business administration jobs, which is filling gaps in our market. The
proportion has increased from 25 per cent. to 42 per cent. because
people from those countries are flowing into the areas such as business
administration and
management.
Lower-skilled
jobs will presumably fall into tier 3 of the points system that we are
introducing, which will tackle the issue across the board. For clarity,
I should explain to those hon. Members who have not yet followed the
debate in detail that tier 1 is for highly skilled migrants who would
come in with the freedom to work within the marketplace; tier 2 is for
skilled workers with a job offer; tier 3 is for lower-skilled employed
workersI suggest that those are the very workers about whom the
hon. Gentleman is talkingtier 4 is for students; and tier 5 is
for temporary workers and young people on placements, exchange schemes
and so on. The system will bring clarity to the marketplace. It is
absolutely right that employers should take responsibility for ensuring
that the people who come in are legal.
We have a managed migration
approach to dealing with the backlog of cases to ensure that they will
be dealt with within the next five years. Many of my constituents fall
into that category. We have prioritised that approach for asylum cases
and we are now prioritising it for people who are seeking to change
their statusperhaps those who are already working in the
country and are seeking indefinite leave to remain.
This is perhaps a little bit
off the subject of the debateI have been a bit
indulgentbut the hon. Gentleman and I can correspond about the
issue or have a chat in the Lobby if he would like to discuss it
further.
Damian
Green:
In the explanatory memorandum, the
Ministers predecessor said that the statistics in the annexe
provide a useful overview of the number of legal migrants into the EU
but need to be supplemented with further information on the number of
illegal immigrants and the extent of visa abuse. That must be the right
thing to do, as it is one of the huge problems that the Government
face. Can the Minister tell us what measures are being introduced in
co-operation with other EU member states, given the huge importance of
getting an accurate figure?
Meg
Hillier:
Clearly, one of the difficulties is counting
illegal immigration because people who are illegal do not appear in the
system. However, visa abuse is being tackled through the use of
biometrics. We are issuing 2.75 million visas for the UK, and we turn
down about 19 per cent. of applications at the point when we discover
that people have applied by another
route or under another name. That is one way of tackling the problem;
the work of Eurodac in comparing fingerprints throughout Europe is
another.
As I
explained in my opening remarks, the illegal migrant routes that we
identify in the European Union are being tackled in a number of ways in
partnership with other people. We provide information on those who are
apprehended at the border and we would welcome more analysis of that
information. It is a difficult area for analysis because people who are
illegal try not to be noticed. It is difficult to estimate the number
of illegals in any country or in Europe at any one time, but we have
confidence that the measures we put in place will actively prevent
people from entering this country.
We have airline liaison
officers based in 72 countries, I believe. They do not have legal
status in those countries, but they help airlines so that people who do
not have the correct paperwork are turned away at the point of
embarkation, before getting on an aeroplane. There is also airline
information technology, which is relevant while a flight is in transit.
Information has been flagged up that has led to 900 arrests of people
who have come in on flights from countries around the world. All those
measures are in place, and our e-Borders programme and new five-tier
strategy will further improve the
position.
Mr.
Pelling:
One recommendation in the report relates to
dialogue with Russia and with CISCommonwealth of Independent
Statesand central Asian states, particularly in the context of
migration movements from Afghanistan, China and south-east Asia. Does
the Minister feel that the best channel for dialogue is between the
European Union and those countries, or should it be more unilateral,
between ourselves in the United Kingdom and those
countries?
Meg
Hillier:
The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights an issue
that is quite challenging, because although the EU as an international
body has agreements with countries, we have our own relationships with
countries outside the EU, particularly those that are linked with our
diaspora communities. It is clearly proven that the diaspora
communities create huge business opportunities for us, and there are
ongoing backward links to peoples home countries. China is a
big market for the future. We have a growing Chinese population; it is
small but significant in its own way. There are also general links with
some of the other areas that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. One reason
why we are a bit concerned about the idea of mobility partnerships is
that those unilateral relationships are important, as well as the EU
ones. We have to get the balance right so that we do not have to fit in
with something that does not fit with our national interest. It is
worth stating that, above all, it is the UK national interest that must
prevail, although we welcome what we can receive from Europe where
co-operation is particularly
helpful.
Damian
Green:
The Minister has mentioned Eurodac several times.
In that context, it is interesting to consider the rather scathing
attack by the head of Interpol last week on the lack of co-operation
between
the British authorities and authorities in other countries in relation
to exchanging essential police information. Eurodac is, if you like, a
subset of that, in that it relates to fingerprints. What information
flows both ways? What information on British citizens are we giving to
Eurodac, and what are our authorities receiving in
return?
Meg
Hillier:
Eurodac deals not with British citizens but with
asylum seekers. Information is collected about someone who is seeking
asylum; that is immediately sent to Eurodac, which can then provide
information about whether they have applied for asylum elsewhere.
Because this is done through fingerprints, the information is clearly
attached to the individual. Let us say, for example, that someone
applied for asylum in Germany and then came to Britain and applied for
asylum here. I have seen such casesI am sure that we all have.
If that happened and it was discovered that that individual had an
asylum case that was either live or that they had lost in Germany, they
would be shipped back to Germany to be dealt with through its normal
asylum processes or, indeed, returned. We now have quite interesting
arrangements. We have agreements with countries whereby, for example,
we can put someone on an aeroplane to Germany, perhaps in transit to
their country of origin, which clearly would not be Germany in the
example that I have just given. That is how Eurodac is
working.
As for our
relationship with Interpol, we have risk lists within Europe to which
we refer. Working with Interpol is clearly vital to tackling
international terrorism, and we are looking into how to ensure that we
do that more
effectively.
Damian
Green:
One related issue that is a real problem is
document fraud and document abuse. It was before the Ministers
time in office, but she may have caught up with the now notorious
Panorama programme in which a reporter went round the
European Union, managed to get hold of 15 fake passports and used two
of them to enter this countryone of them on Eurostar into
Waterloo, which is allegedly one of the best policed ports of entry in
this country. There is clearly an enormous problem, given the capacity
to produce fraudulent documents and the ability to use forged documents
to gain access to this country. What co-operation measures are being
put in place to improve our performance in that
area?
Meg
Hillier:
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It
is one of the reasons why in this country we are introducing interviews
for first-time passport holders. We want to attach the individual
closely to their passport, which is a valuable
document.
It has been
a British tradition to take everything on trust. One can vote and get a
passport just by providing basic information, but we are now making the
processes far more secure. I did not see the Panorama
programme, but it demonstrates why biometrics and links across Europe
are important. The biometric visa system for people coming from outside
Europe is important in dealing with the problem. It is clear that there
are some challenges with paper-based passport systems that offer no
easy way of linking the passport to the person, and not just in the UK.
I
believe that we have all probably dealt with cases of people whose
identity and passport had been questioned. Perhaps an allegation was
made that their passport was not theirs but somebody
elses.
The
photograph in my passport, which is one of the newest generation of
passports, is on a chip. When the chip is read, my photograph and
travel history can be seen by the immigration officer. That is the
European standard. It will help to tackle the problem, because clearly
it will be much harder for people to commit fraud to the extent that
they are able to get 15 fake passports. We must remain ever vigilant
and constantly ensure that we tackle every loophole that fraudsters or
fakers find. The biometric approach that we are taking is the best way
of tackling the problem, and that is why we are progressing it as we
are.
Mr.
Pelling:
In posing this question to the Minister, I am
cognisant of the fact that one can read in the papers the significant
global trends behind migration, but many of the effects can be seen at
a micro-level in ones own constituency. I would like to touch
on the problem of human trafficking. In my constituency, Croydon
Community Against Trafficking highlights the way in which 84 per cent.
of the women who are trafficked into the local sex industry have been
trafficked from eastern Europe and beyond. I know that good work is
being done by the European Union and by Her Majestys
Government, particularly through the Met, in trying to tackle the issue
in the origin states from which many of those unfortunate women are
trafficked. To what degree should we be working co-operatively with the
initiatives being taken by the European Union, and to what extent will
we benefit from our own initiatives in this important area of
concern?
Meg
Hillier:
It is clear that co-operative working is vital in
such an area. As I have explained, the routes by which people enter
Europe illegally are common, perhaps not always to the whole of the
European Union but there are established routes from the east, south
and west. We are already doing work in Europe and on our own to ensure
that support is given to origin
nations.
The documents
about mobility partnerships contain suggestions from the Commission.
There is some talk about conducting information campaigns on illegal
migration, but one of our concerns is how they would be delivered and
how we would monitor their effectiveness. It is good that we are
discussing the issue, but we are not convinced that the mobility
partnerships that the Commission is proposing will necessarily be a
better solution than some of the things that we are already doing.
There are several measures in place to tackle human
trafficking.
Damian
Green:
May I pick up on the important point raised by my
hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central about human trafficking and
co-operative efforts to stop it? There is a step that the Government
have said that they will takethe announcement was very
welcomeand that is to sign the Council of Europe convention on
action against trafficking in human beings. However, it seems to be a
long time coming. Can the Minister give us any
indication of when we will actually take that important step and sign
the
convention?
Meg
Hillier:
I have looked for advice, but I believe that we
have agreed to sign the conventionI had understood that we had
signed it. It is certainly vital that we tackle human trafficking
across the board, because we cannot solve the problem alone. We must
ensure that there are stiff penalties for anybody who is found guilty
of human trafficking. I now have the advice that I sought, and we are
looking at implementation at present, but it is a complex
area.
The
Chairman:
If no more Members wish to ask questions, we
will proceed to the main
debate.
Motion
made, and Question proposed,
That this Committee takes note
of European Union Documents No. 9773/07, Commission Communication on
the application of the EU Global Approach to Migration to the Eastern
and South-Eastern Regions Neighbouring the European Union and 9776/07,
Commission Communication on circular migration and mobility
partnerships between the European Union and third countries; and
supports the Government's position that the expansion of the Global
Approach to Migration provides an opportunity to assess progress so far
as well as explore and clarify the concepts of circular migration and
mobility partnerships. [Meg
Hillier.]
5.10
pm
Damian
Green:
Since the motion is a take-note motion, it seems
difficult to excoriate it, which reflects an underlying point that this
Committee is slightly unusual because the Opposition broadly agree with
the Governments stance towards the Commissions
proposals on this subject. Immigration and border controls are such an
important matter that it is proper that ultimate power should rest with
member states and with the British Government, even though there is
enormous benefit in international and EU-level co-operation, and even
though there are benefits to Britain in developing Europe-level
institutions that make EU borders less porous.
During questions, we discussed
institutions such as Frontex; the better that organisation can do its
job, the safer our own borders will be. Nevertheless, it is worth
making the point firmly that Britains borders remain the
responsibility of the British Government. Despite the fact that we are
an island, many people who have no right to be in this country get
through our borders too easily, which is a problem that must be
addressed by the British Government. From their approach to the
documentation, it seems clear that they disagree with some of the
Commissions ambitions and proposals, and we welcome their
scepticism in that respect.
In that context, it is worth
making the point that the Commissions documents are slightly
strange. They combine serious legal changes, such as the mention of new
directives, with proposals that could politely be described as best
practice suggestionsfor example, they suggest longer opening
hours at consulates. Some of the suggestions may be entirely practical
and sensible, but those matters are clearly best left to the judgment
of member states. It seems peculiar that the Commission is mixing up
big and important macro-proposals with those micro-measures.
If some of the
Commissions sensible suggestions are taken up by a large number
of member states, all member states will benefit. It is therefore
important to maintain the distinction whereby there are areas in which
it is entirely sensible for member states to co-operate and, equally,
areas in which handing the ultimate decision-making power to the
European Union would not be welcome.
Circular migration is one of
the documents two big points. The fear, which I suspect
Ministers share, is that circular migration will in many cases be
nothing of the sort, and that it will become a route to permanent
migration to the more developed countries inside the European Union,
notably this country, either because the system is too lax or because
the incentives for movement are too great. As I say, I share the
Ministers scepticism: much of the document on circular
migration consists of helpful policy tips rather than a policy
statementuntil page 33, which states
that
the Commission may
in due course consider proposing adjustments to a number of existing
legislative instruments in order to promote circular
migration.
I imagine
that that sort of sentence has impelled the Government to refer the
documents to this Committee. The purpose of doing so is to take the
mood of the House on the Governments attitude to future
negotiations and discussions on this issue. I hope that the Minister is
reassured that the Government will fully reflect the view of the House
if they continue to take a reasonably robust
attitude.
In her
introductory remarks, the Minister mentioned the A8 countries and said
that they should inform our discussions. She is right. That statement
was a brave and welcome one; Ministers are often not keen to discuss
what happened when the A8 countries acceded to the European Union,
because the Government predicted that about 13,000 people would come
here, and about 600,000 did. The Conservative party frequently refers
to that; we are less often invited to do so by Ministers, so I am happy
to agree to her invitation.
There is a serious
pointthe tipping point, if you like. If the incentives to move
from less developed economies to more developed ones are great, the
movement of peoples will be absolutely and unpredictably enormous. It
therefore behoves any Government to be particularly
carefulalthough, frankly, one could not wish to conduct an
experiment in rapid, unexpected mass migration with better people than
those who came from the A8 countries. The vast majority are
hard-working, good citizens and everything that we could want to add to
our community. However, their sheer numbers have added to the stresses
and strains in many of our cities.
We should all learn the lesson
that for a migration system to succeed, the controls have to be firm
enough so that even with an absolutely ideal population, we can avoid
the public sector infrastructure problems that inevitably come when the
sheer numbers accessing public services are much higher than anyone has
planned for. That is relevant to discussions about both circular
migration and mobility partnerships. The Government have expressed
scepticism about mobility partnerships, which may prove a way for far
more
people to arrive in countries such as Britain than would otherwise do
so. We share the Governments concern about that and would
welcome a continuation of a robust position.
I should like to flag up two
potential changes as giving cause for concernfirst, the
possibility of a change in respect of the withdrawal of long-term
resident status. Currently, that is withdrawn after an absence of 12
consecutive months; there is a proposal in the bundle that that minimum
period could be extended to two or three years. Similarly, there is a
proposal for the introduction of multi-entry residents permits,
which would allow the holder to be absent from the EU for long periods
without forfeiting residency rights. Clearly, those are EU residency
privileges, not rights. It is therefore reasonable for further controls
to be exercised on the use of those
privileges.
The
general message from the Conservative Benches is that the Government
are right to express their concern about some aspects of the direction
in which the Commission wishes to head and that we would support
measures to preserve Britains primacy in its control over its
own borders.
5.20
pm
Mr.
Browne:
As there is a large degree of consensus, I shall
be brief. I share the Ministers belief that the primary
responsibility for policing and managing the United Kingdoms
borders should lie with the UK Government. I also agree with her that
there is genuine role for the European Union, partly because the EU is
a single entity in terms of the labour market and freedom of travel for
its citizens, but also because there are real concerns about people
accessing the EU via particularly weak points in the chain. I have
already mentioned west Africa. The eastern border of the European Union
is also vast, and many commentators are far from convinced that it is
policed effectively, given the flow backwards and forwards of people
from new accession countries and countries that are not EU
members.
We can
co-operate on people trafficking, immigration crime and asylum policy
to try to improve the situation, but my experience of Frontex is that
it is a bold but rather small step towards making such co-operation
meaningful in terms of practical results. I urge the Minister to have a
look at how effective it is. In some ways, it operates on a symbolic
political level, but we are considering a European Union of hundreds of
millions of people with a large border, and the resources of
Frontexfinancial as well as staffare extremely small
for the scale of that challenge.
However, every organisation has
to start somewhere, and Frontex has to give value for
money. I urge the Minister to regard it not as a threat to the ability
of the United Kingdom to police its own borders, but as a complementary
service in which Britain would be well advised to play a leading role
and for which it should show enthusiasm. I am sure that that is the
attitude of the Minister. If that is the case, it offers a real
opportunity for her in her new position and for the Government to
demonstrate progress in an area that will be beneficial for the
European Union as a whole, and to show other EU nations that might
occasionally think that the United
Kingdom slightly drags its feet when it comes to co-operation that we
can be enthusiasts for a project and show a degree of leadership that
benefits the other 26 countries as well as
ourselves.
Let me
finish a point that I touched on earlier and probably articulated in a
way that made it look more tangential to the conversation than it was.
I hope that, in all of these conversations and deliberations, we do not
lose sight of the contribution that skilled non-EU residents are able
to make to particular areas of our labour market. The hon. Member for
Ashford spoke about the stresses and strains that have been caused in
many of our cities by migration to the United Kingdom from elsewhere in
the European Union. That is true, but in many cases it has been hugely
beneficial to our economy, although there have been strains on housing
in some instances and public services in others.
That situation is not
unique to our cities. Agriculture and other sectors
in the area that I represent have enjoyed huge benefits as a result of
the contribution to our economy of people from elsewhere in the
European Union. However, in certain niche industries the skills we need
are not available. Low-paid but skilled staff in the residential care
sector are a good example of people in countries beyond Europe making a
real and often unseen contribution to the overall well-being of our
nation.
I support the
Governments desire to ensure that migration flows are closely
regulated, and that we work in conjunction with our European Union
partners, but I caution Ministers against thinking that public
sentiment is clearly pointing towards having fewer migrants from
outside the European Union. Although people sometimes respond in those
terms in broad, rather tabloid-driven debate, my experience is that
when it comes to specific examples in our communities, people from
countries such as the Philippines are making skilled and useful
contributions to the well-being of our
society.
5.25
pm
Meg
Hillier:
This has been a useful debate, and I welcome the
support of the hon. Member for Ashford for our approach. He said that
we disagree with the Commission, but I would say that the documents are
work in progress and that we are looking forward to further discussions
with the Commission.
The hon. Gentleman raised the
issue of circular migration, and I reiterate the point that I made at
the beginning. We believe that we have sorted that out with our
points-based system, and that it is not proven that illegal migration
should be tackled by introducing a circular system. We hope that with
the route that we have taken, we are already tackling
it.
The
hon. Gentleman mentioned the A8 countries, and I want to pick him up on
the figure that he mentioned, which suggested that we had got the
forecasts
completely wrong. For the record, the prediction was that over 10 years
13,000 people a year would come here if all other member states opened
their labour markets, which they did not. Overall, as he acknowledged,
migration has been beneficial, but we agree that there have been some
transitional impacts, which is one reason why the migration impacts
forums work is important. That is also why we took our position
on Bulgaria and Romania, the A2 countries, and agreed in January to
maintain it. We intend to do a stocktake of that approach by the end of
the year. We are always learning lessons about the changes in
population, and we are seeing faster changes now than before. We must
respond to that.
The
hon. Member for Taunton raised some interesting points, and we agree
that working together on migration and tackling trafficking is vital. I
want to clarify the work that Frontex does. It does not have the power
to override border agencies from individual nations. Its work is more
akin to that of the European Union in policing: it co-ordinates and
pulls together different bodies, suggests ways of working, and takes a
lead in some of that co-ordination work. The hon. Gentleman may have a
different vision for Frontexs future, and we must be clear
about its capabilities. That is something that I am hoping to get to
know as I become more established in my
job.
The hon.
Gentleman rightly highlighted the contribution of skilled, non-EU
residents. I see that in my constituency, but we believe that tiers 1
and 2 of our points-based system, which allow such people into the
country, and the other tiers will help to manage that migration so that
it is effective. We want to welcome people who make a contribution to
this country, but we need a firm system in place. Again, I refer to the
migration impacts forum, which will ensure that we are managing the
impact on our communities of even those who are here
legally.
The fight
against illegal immigration is at the forefront of our work and that of
the European Union. With the Commission, we are working to tackle the
issue, as I have outlined. I thank hon. Members for this interesting
debate.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the takes note of European Union Documents
No. 9773/07, Commission Communication on the application of the EU
Global Approach to Migration to the Eastern and South-Eastern Regions
Neighbouring the European Union and 9776/07, Commission Communication
on circular migration and mobility partnerships between the European
Union and third countries; and supports the Government's position that
the expansion of the Global Approach to Migration provides an
opportunity to assess progress so far as well as explore and clarify
the concepts of circular migration and mobility
partnerships.
Committee
rose at twenty-nine minutes past Five
oclock.