| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
On qualification for citizenship, there is another issue: employment for people who have entered the country as migrant workers. The Lords discussed the requirement
for continuous employment, and I have concerns about how that might be interpreted, especially if, as may be, the courts get involved in the interpretation of continuous employment. In the Lords debates, Ministers said that there would be circumstances in which an employer could change. For instance, if an employer went bankrupt, it would clearly not be reasonable to say that a person had been out of continuous employment if they then went into another job.
People may well find themselves locked into staying with the same employer, however, and they may find it difficult to change jobs during the qualifying period. Concerns have been expressed—certainly by a number of trade unions—about what that might mean: the potential for exploitation, and the potential for people to be locked into working conditions that are even unlawful. Indeed, we know that that happens now. Someone who has a dubious immigration status or is scared about what might happen to them if they lose their job can end up working in unlawful conditions, not being paid the minimum wage and so on. They are scared to complain, however, because they are scared of the consequences. They are scared that they will lose their job, apart from anything else. If another consequence is going to be that they lose their qualifying period for citizenship and have to go back to the beginning of the process, that will act as a further incentive not to complain. We must therefore look at introducing some safeguards on the qualifying periods.
A similar point arises about safeguards on periods of absence from the country. Ministers gave some assurances in the Lords, but it is currently possible to average periods of absence over the five years, and I should like the Bill to retain that averaging system.
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the Lords there was discussion about an amendment to enable Chagos islanders who were born before 1969, but to parents from those islands, to be granted British citizenship in line with all the others who were granted citizenship through the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. Unfortunately, the Government resisted such amendments. Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill would be improved if such an amendment were made at some stage in this House?
Mr. Gerrard: This would be an appropriate place to try to look for a solution to the Chagos islands problem, which has been going on for some considerable time.
One other matter that I hope the Minister will address in his winding-up speech is access to benefits and services. It is generally accepted that full access to benefits and services should be withheld until someone has either citizenship or permanent residence. Indeed, that is essentially the current situation: certain benefits and services cannot be accessed until someone has permanent residence, at least. However, given that the Bill extends the qualifying period for citizenship, I am concerned that people will end up paying taxes for much longer periods without being able to reap the benefits from those taxes or to access even contribution-based benefits. I should be extremely concerned if, in the regulations that follow the Bill, any attempt were made to restrict access to health care for a longer period than operates at present.
Unless I missed it, when introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary did not mention the provision to restrict judicial review applications. That caused some argument and controversy in the Lords, and I hope that it will be covered in the winding-up speeches. Clause 55 includes an amendment that was made in the Lords, limiting the cases that can be transferred from the High Court to the upper tribunal. I strongly believe that it ought still to be possible to go to the High Court.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has been here long enough to remember previous immigration Bills in which the Government said that they wanted to streamline the appeals process so that there was a need for only one tribunal; if anyone needed judicial review, they could go to the High Court. What my hon. Friend has mentioned goes against the philosophy that the Government have developed in the past 12 years. The Government are returning the cases to a new, upper tribunal, having said that we did not need a second tribunal.
Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. I always thought it perfectly sensible for there to be a single appeal. There were systems, for example, under which someone would have an appeal against an asylum decision and, separately, another appeal when there was an attempt to remove them. It makes sense to put the two together so that the appeal looks both at the asylum decision and at human rights applications, for instance.
The issues can be complicated and are fundamental to human rights; they are about whether someone will be allowed to remain in this country or will be removed. In such important cases, it ought to be possible to go to a High Court judge. I am hoping for reassurance that in the later stages of consideration no attempt will be made to remove the Lords amendment in respect of clause 55.
I should like to conclude by discussing destitution, an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). As has been pointed out, the scope of the Bill has been very restricted in comparison with that of the draft Bill that we considered last year. The draft Bill would have consolidated and covered a whole range of issues, and allowed us to debate them, which are missing from this Bill. We should be considering the clearly missing issues of the support of asylum seekers and the number of people who are in this country for one reason or another and are living in destitution.
Let us consider those who have been refused leave to remain but are still in the country; very significant numbers of them are from countries that the Government recognise are not safe to return people to: Zimbabwe, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and so on. Yet we require those people to sign up to section 4 to get support. That means that they have to sign a piece of paper saying that they are prepared to go back, although they are terrified of doing so. If they do not sign, they get nothing; we do not even allow those who have signed up to section 4 to work to support themselves, even when we know that they may be in the country for a significant period.
Jeremy Corbyn:
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Does he share my concern that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not included in
the list of countries too dangerous to return people to? Sometimes the information relating to what is or is not a safe country seems incredibly subjective.
Mr. Gerrard: There are a lot of examples of dubious decisions about where it is safe or not safe to return people to. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have seen the reports about the treatment of some people who have been returned to the Congo; they have ended up in the hands of jailers.
Lynne Jones: A young woman from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who was living in my constituency, is awaiting deportation to the DRC tomorrow. She has no relatives there, but is being sent back. She fears that she will be subject to arrest, rape and other mistreatments that, as has been well documented, have happened to other people who have been deported to that country.
Mr. Gerrard: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is evidence that that has happened in returns to other countries.
Irrespective of the returns policy, I come back to the issue of the destitution of those people who are here. If we accept that someone cannot be returned, which is essentially what we do when we let someone be supported under section 4, we should be looking at giving that person the opportunity to support themselves by working until it is possible to return them to their country of origin. It is a pity that those aspects of asylum support are not covered in the Bill, which means we do not have the opportunity properly to consider what those support systems should be.
I hope that in winding up the debate the Minister will answer some of my questions, particularly on judicial review. I also hope that we can hear more about exactly what is being considered in terms of the points-based system towards citizenship. That represents a fundamental change, and we should know something about it before the Bill has completed its passage through this place, given that it has already been through the Lords and there will be no opportunity to amend it further other than in the Commons.
5.1 pm
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), whose expertise in this area is well known. I strongly agree with his points on judicial review and on destitution, which are well taken.
The Home Secretary and I have had a pleasant and genial relationship, but I have always been surprised at how little we have been able to agree on. Nevertheless, I certainly pay tribute to her, not least for being the first woman Home Secretary, which is an important milestone for this House and for Government.
I am afraid that this Bill is another example of the Government forcing through ill-thought-out, poorly drafted legislation. It is the 11th immigration Bill since 1997—we have had almost one a year—yet it still does not deliver on the Government’s promise of a Bill that would simplify and consolidate the entire immigration and asylum system; for that we must wait at least until the end of this year. Instead, we have an interim Bill with more piecemeal reforms—some good, some bad,
and some, frankly, unclear. Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I must confess to being confused about exactly what the Government are proposing as regards the points-based system and citizenship.
Much of the detail will remain a mystery until the slew of statutory instruments for which the Bill provides is forthcoming. Admittedly, I have not had such a long career here, but I cannot remember ever having seen a Bill before the House with so many clauses involving phrases such as
“The Treasury may by order make provision for”,
“The Attorney General may by order assign to”,
“The Secretary of State may make regulations”.
There is an astonishing degree of reliance of statutory instruments. When in doubt, the Government want to give Ministers the power to make things up at a later date. This is yet another “Trust me, I’m a Minister” Bill. Well, this House should not trust Ministers with clean-sheet powers. We do not even know who those Ministers will be this time next week, let alone in a year’s time.
Such matters of border control and nationality are far too important to be left to statutory instrument and should be debated as primary legislation on the Floor of this House. We are, after all, debating nothing less than what defines us as a nation, for any country that cannot control its borders cannot choose who lives among us, and soon cedes its own identity. The defence of the realm and the establishment of border control is one of the most basic functions of Government. Admittedly, it has never been easy for a nation with the third longest coastline in Europe, at 7,758 miles—as generations of west country smugglers who evaded the excise men knew. Nor should we underestimate the challenges posed by the new age of mass travel and globalisation. The number of people entering and leaving this country every year is more than three times the number in our population. In 2006 we recorded 192 million passenger movements in aviation alone, not counting the channel tunnel or shipping, and 279 million tonnes of freight was imported—an increase of 50 per cent. in just a decade. Every flight full of tourists and honest business people may also carry illegal migrants, and every lorry is a potential vehicle for people smuggling.
That context is crucial, because this country above all others has thrived, from the earliest times when Cornish tin was sold to Byzantium, on taking our opportunities across the world to buy cheap and sell dear. Our migration system must sift the illegal from the vast mass of honest trade and travel, and that is not easy.
Migration has increased enormously, too, in the age of mass travel, and immigrants make a hugely valuable contribution to our society. I am sorry that no Member has so far stressed that. There are 11,000 overseas teachers working in British schools, and in London some 23 per cent. of doctors and 47 per cent. of nurses were born outside the UK. In many parts of the country, our public services would collapse without the dedication and commitment of many people who came to this country to make a better life for themselves, but also for us.
Yet the evidence is that we are not getting the balance right and are failing to persuade our fellow citizens that the system is under control. Alarmingly, a poll conducted in May 2007 found that 61 per cent. of people believed
that there were too many immigrants living in Britain, and almost 40 per cent. said that immigration and race relations were among the top three issues facing the country. Until 1999, that figure was consistently below 10 per cent. Net migration into the UK has risen from 47,000 in 1997 to 198,000 in 2007—a substantial annual figure and a substantial increase.
Sadly, the Government cannot say that they expected, predicted or planned that increase. When we, along with Denmark and Ireland, agreed to be the only EU countries to open our borders to workers from central and eastern Europe, the forecast was that there would be barely 52,000 migrants in four years. Instead, there were 766,000. That is possibly, in a fairly wide and crowded field, the worst Government forecast in history. There have been strains in the areas to which migrants have disproportionately come. It has affected pay rates in local labour markets and put stress on local public services for which funding allocations were based on census data rather than on more up-to-date information such as NHS enrolments.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that we need to withdraw from the EU because we cannot afford such free movement—I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is not now in his place—let us remember that that was a one-off influx that arose because we decided not to apply transitional arrangements of the kind applied by Germany, Italy, France and others. Those who wanted to migrate had only three EU countries to go to. It was our decision, not the EU’s.
The same mistake is not being made when it comes to Romania and Bulgaria, and it remains the case that our fellow citizens have availed themselves of the EU’s freedom of movement provisions more than those from other countries. Some Members may remember the TV programme “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”. More British citizens live in the rest of the EU than other EU citizens live here, so populist calls for EU withdrawal would be counter-productive in their own terms. Withdrawal would deprive our citizens of choice and probably lead to an increase in the UK population, and certainly to an increase in strains on the NHS.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but is not part of the problem, and part of the reason for the British public’s anger, the fact that they were told by the Home Office that the number who would settle here when people from the 10 new EU countries were allowed access to live and work would be something like 13,000 or 16,000? In reality it was closer to 1 million. That is why the British public felt angry at being let down.
Chris Huhne: The hon. Gentleman was clearly asleep earlier in my speech, because I gave the precise figures. Some 52,000 migrants in four years were predicted, and in fact there were 766,000. He is absolutely right, and I had already made that point.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): He was not right about the numbers.
Chris Huhne: Indeed, I corrected the hon. Gentleman’s numbers; I thank my hon. Friend.
If we are to maximise the benefits that migration can provide to the UK, while minimising the potential downside, we need better control of our borders. Yet the Bill does too little, too late. It was madness for the previous Conservative Government to begin to dismantle exit controls, given that we no longer have a way to check whether short-term visas are respected, and whether people issued with them return home. It was madness because we know that most illegal immigrants, contrary to what the official Opposition claim, are overstayers on legitimate visas. They did not arrive in the back of lorries.
It was equal madness for the Labour Government to persist with the abolition of exit checks and to take such a long time to reinstate them through the e-Borders scheme. It will not be fully operational before March 2014, and this year only just over half those leaving the country will be checked. How can we stop overstaying students or temporary workers if we do not know whether they have left? The Home Office must move much further, much faster to re-establish exit checks.
Mr. Woolas: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a superb speech and analysis. I plead with him to consider the trajectory of the roll-out of e-Borders. He is right to say that 100 per cent. will be achieved by 2014, but we will reach 90 per cent. much sooner. The remaining small ports do not allow us to achieve 100 per cent. so quickly. I hope that he will support the programme.
Chris Huhne: I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, but as far as I remember, only 60 per cent. will be achieved by the end of this year. We could be doing much more, much faster by reintroducing manual checks, if necessary, not merely the e-Borders scheme. As the Minister knows and as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) rightly pointed out, much of the extra baggage in the e-Borders scheme is unnecessary to its key functions, which the Liberal Democrats support.
Mr. Woolas: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgement: the figures are 60 per cent. this year and will be 90-odd per cent. next year. The scheme will roll out very quickly. Does he accept the Government’s serious point that the arrangements with many countries are reciprocal? If we count people coming in and going out we must reciprocate, which means that there have to be some checks on us.
Chris Huhne: How other countries apply their visa arrangements is up to them. I am merely making a common-sense point, which seems to have eluded Conservative and Labour Members for more than 10 years: if short-term visas are issued to students or those who have temporary rights to work, we need to know when they leave. If we do not know when they leave, we do not know whether the visas have been respected. That is crucial. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to raise himself from a sedentary position—but I see that exhaustion has reached such a point that he must clutch at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and trying to inject some life into the debate, which is important. Given his comments, will he drop his opposition to e-Borders, and his bogus claim that it is some Big Brother database and interference with people’s liberties, when it is simply a border control?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |