| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That is as clear-cut as it is possible to be, and I hope that the Government will now stop flogging this very dead horse.
It is also worth considering the Government’s desire to abolish the common travel area between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, as well as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) is rightly concerned about that. The Government claim not to be doing this, but their assertion simply does not stand up to examination. There will be immigration controls on air and sea journeys where none exists at present. There will no longer be a common travel area.
Will the Minister tell us what effect these new controls will have on staffing arrangements at the UKBA? New border controls will mean either a significant shift of resources from existing posts or the need for many more immigration officers. Which of these is going to happen? To make matters worse, the measures will not lead to an increase in security for the UK. There are, rightly, no proposals to change the arrangements along the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, so the effect will be to inconvenience travellers for no discernible purpose whatever. If Ministers argue that citizens in England, Scotland and Wales will be better protected by these measures, why are they discriminating against British citizens who live in Northern Ireland? The current arrangements work well and do not require changing. The removal of the Government’s proposed change received widespread cross-party support in the Lords, and I urge Ministers not to seek to change the provision back.
We will also be interested to hear Ministers’ arguments about the change to the court arrangements proposed and rejected by their lordships. I think that we all want to achieve a system of immigration and asylum justice that is considerably faster than the current system, but that does not achieve speed purely at the expense of those who may have a legitimate claim to appeal. It was obvious that Ministers in the Lords could not convince their House of the merits of the Government’s proposals, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister argue the case in this House.
We shall obviously be raising a range of other issues in Committee. From whatever angle we look at this Bill—the eighth immigration Bill produced by the Government in their period of office—it fails to deal with the central problems produced by the long-term failure of immigration policy. It fiddles around the edges of a number of big issues, but it does not make our borders more secure or provide clear incentives for those in this country to integrate fully and properly, and it is not fair to many of those who have come here to work and to contribute to our economy.
There is a need for big changes in our immigration system. We need changes to the points-based system to allow us to place a limit on the number of work permits issued, to bring about a properly integrated border police force and to strengthen the need to speak English for those intending to settle in this country, particularly through marriage.
The Bill fails to address these important central issues. It will go the way of many of its predecessors—over-hyped on its introduction, then barely leaving a trace on the real world. We need properly radical immigration legislation,
but to get that, we need a new Government. With every day that passes, it becomes increasingly clear just how much we need a new Government.
7.39 pm
The Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil Woolas): I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions to the debate, which have revealed a great deal of experience. I should like to address my remarks first to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who have raised serious points. Of course I agree to undertake to look into them, and to meet the hon. Gentleman. I believe that a letter on that matter may have crossed, as well.
In all cases, the policy that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has instructed me to adopt, which I am more than happy to do, is to place great weight on the representations of Members of Parliament because the MP is the person to whom someone seeking redress should go. That is why we take those representations very seriously, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik) backs me up on that point. That is also why in all these instances we advise people that if they have a problem, they should to go to their MP. The Immigration Act 1971 gives the Secretary of State powers that are mainly delegated to me, and I take that responsibility extremely seriously. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for his kind comments and I undertake to look further into the issue he raised.
A number of specific comments have been made and I shall try to answer them in the short time I have available— [Interruption. ] —and I also want to deal with the bigger picture. Yes, I can assure the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and the House that I do not intend to speak until 10 o’clock. If I did, I suspect it would be last time I would ever speak from this Dispatch Box—and some might well think that that would be a good thing, anyway. [Interruption. ] Pause for objections, please, Hansard.
This is a small Bill, and I believe that it has been unfairly criticised for not doing the whole job when it is, in fact, part of the jigsaw puzzle of the changes to the immigration system that we are introducing. It does essentially two things, both of which I believe have secured a consensus in this House and in the other place.
First, the Bill brings together the necessary statutory changes to ensure that the UK Border Agency is put on a proper legal footing—that involves the merger of its customs functions with its immigration functions from the previous Border and Immigration Agency and Customs and Excise, or the relevant parts of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The creation of that single force meets the exact requirement that the House wants the Government to meet. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned in her opening remarks, when she first assumed that office, she intended not just to get rid of duplication, but to provide a more focused border security force.
In itself, of course, the border security force is only part of the chain. The 42 police forces —or 43 if we include the transport police—are now backed up by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which operates overseas in co-operation with our border posts, providing the
joined-up police powers that Lord Stevens looked at in his report. The incorporation of the police force into the new UK Border Agency has taken place without diminishing the role of the other security organisations, which was the fear I had about it. I believe that the partnership is very important.
Mr. Woolas: I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
Keith Vaz: I am grateful. We must not forget the importance of Europol, which, under its new dynamic British director, is fully supported by the Home Secretary. The director is, as I say, British and Europol works with other police forces throughout the EU in order to combat illegal immigration.
Mr. Woolas: As ever, the expertise of the Select Committee Chairman helps me out. He makes a valid point, and I would add to it Frontex, the European frontier force. Frankly, this country could not protect itself against some of the criminal gangs coming from northern Africa and elsewhere without such co-operation. That raises an interesting point that I would like to put to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and ask him to think about deeply as I know that he can. We depend on co-operation with other countries—primarily in Europe, but also elsewhere. In order to get that co-operation, we must share policies and information. One cannot take an exclusively nationalistic view; we cannot expect to collect data on people travelling to our country unless we are prepared to share data with other countries. That is a matter of common sense in practical policy information.
The first part of the Bill thus achieves what I have set out and the second part looks at the idea of earned citizenship. Again, I believe that some of the criticism of that idea has been unfair.
At the moment, this country provides for citizenship through naturalisation, for temporary leave to remain and in the middle we have the concept of indefinite leave to remain. Many of the people in my constituency and in others who have indefinite leave to remain are neither citizens nor temporary migrants; they are in what one might describe as no man’s land. What we have done in this country has, in my view, failed to provide the routes for integration required to give expression to the aspiration of migrants to integrate into our communities and to get on with their lives. The big mistake in our debate is the false assumption that the migrant does not wish to move to integrate and to aspire. That is precisely why the idea of earned citizenship is not punitive, but a platform to help meet those aspirations.
Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister acknowledge that some people are perfectly happy to remain with the status of indefinite leave to remain? They want to live here, but they do not necessarily wish to become citizens. Some countries allow dual nationality and others do not, so some people who might face having to give up their original nationality in order to become British citizens might actually prefer to remain with the status of indefinite leave.
Mr. Woolas: Of course I understand that point, but a person on ILR does not get dual citizenship and cannot get a visa on a British passport because they are not British citizens. [Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Ashford looks confused; he has obviously never had an advice surgery with anybody with ILR status. In commenting on excellent and well-informed contributions, I have reassured the House that these proposals do not in any way retrospectively affect those with ILR. The hon. Member for Ashford fairly raised a point relating to the highly skilled migrants scheme; I concede that point, the court has ruled, and we will of course obey.
Damian Green: I am very glad to hear that last point and I look forward to the Home Secretary—or her successor—following the same route in respect of the ruling about DNA. Let me explain the apparent confusion. About 40 per cent. of people with ILR never apply for citizenship, so we are not talking about just a few people around the edges of the system, but about very significant numbers. The Minister appears to be advancing a new doctrine that those people are in some way a failure of the system and that he wants everyone on ILR to move towards citizenship. If I am looking confused, it is because I cannot really believe that he is saying that.
Mr. Woolas: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am not familiar with those with indefinite leave to remain, I invite him to come to Oldham this weekend. Of course it is the case that many people on ILR have chosen not to go for citizenship, but I ask the House—and the Committee if the House gives leave for the Bill to move on—to consider the reasons for that. The main point is that the proposals for earned citizenship should not be seen as punitive on the prospective citizen, but as a route to help those people to integrate into our society. That is why it is possible to provide the reassurance that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker)—I agree with his analysis—quite rightly asked for. This means reassuring our indigenous population that that immigrant positively wants to be a member of our community so that we can have better cohesion and better relations in all our communities.
Let me deal with some specifics. The two parts of the Bill I have covered so far are quite simple. As the hon. Member for Ashford fairly said, it is a short Bill, so it does not provide the complete picture. It is not a simplification Bill. We have made announcements on that. It is rather unfair to say that we have put further efforts to one side; we have announced that we will move forward. I am grateful to the Select Committee for the scrutiny it has carried out so far. As the House knows, we intend to come back with further proposals.
Keith Vaz: I wonder whether my hon. Friend remembers my speech. In fact, I lamented the fact that we did not have the detail from the Minister, which was why we could not scrutinise the Bill. We hope that he will be able to allow that scrutiny in Committee, but—I am following his arguments very carefully—will he now address the point that was made about the backlog at the Border and Immigration Agency? Every Member present is concerned about the fact that another Bill is being passed and we are still receiving the letters from Lin Homer telling us that we must wait for two years to get a result.
Mr. Woolas: The Chairman of the Select Committee never misses an opportunity to raise this issue. Let me point out that we use the words “up to two years”, which is not the same as “two years”. Let me also point out that the figures that we have given, and continue to give, to his Committee show that we are managing the legacy, that it is being reduced, and that we are dealing with decisions more quickly. Moreover, following his Committee’s representations, we have made policy changes to respond to the needs of Members of Parliament across the House, and the pilot that was conducted on an all-party basis has been implemented. So he is making progress, but he is asking a bit too much. In fact, he is asking two questions.
Let me now deal with the issue of compulsory volunteering. We reject the accusation that the volunteering is compulsory. What we are trying to do—with, I hope, the support across the House that we have received so far—is provide a route enabling people to show their commitment to citizenship by engaging in certain voluntary activities. The discussion of what those activities will be is for the Committee; we have made our own views known.
Let me make clear that we do not propose the abolition of the common travel area, which was mentioned by a number of Members including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell). Along with the Government of Ireland, we are considering how we can improve the situation. According to our assessment, an increased security risk is posed by third-country nationals using the route. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) expressed anxiety about the potential impact on the ferries at Holyhead, and of course we must act in a way that is sensitive to that. However, I think that when we discuss the detail, the House will benefit from reassurances similar to those provided by my noble Friend Lord West of Spithead in his winding-up speech in the other place.
Let me deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). An interesting dialogue is taking place with the devolved Administrations on how we can fine-tune migration policy. As I think is recognised by the Scottish Government and others, the quintessential point is that if an immigrant may come to a certain part of the United Kingdom, we must have policies that encourage him or her to stay there, but there is a danger that if the pull of south-east England, north-west England or wherever were great, a Scottish route might be used to usurp it. We must have a grown-up dialogue with our Scottish colleagues about how to deal with that. I believe that the Migration Advisory Committee has made progress.
The policy instrument that is beneficial to the hon. Gentleman’s argument is the separation of temporary migration for economic purposes from permanent settlement. I think that if someone comes to the country to work in, say, a skills-shortage area for a definite period, it will be possible to have our cake and eat it. However, we should bear in mind the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others about that separation of temporary migration from permanent settlement.
Some Members referred to the detention of children. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire cited a specific case, but also made a general point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan)
has raised the issue with me and with others, and has spoken about it in the House on many occasions. Government policy is, of course, that alternatives to detention to children are preferable, and a number of pilots have been conducted. I respect the point that was made by the hon. Member for Ashford, wearing his constituency hat. I was interested by what he said, and will bear it in mind. Dungavel in Scotland is one example of the possible alternatives.
The independent tribunals and courts, not Ministers, make decisions on eligibility and grants. It is the independent system that makes the decisions. I can reassure the House that I personally review each and every case of a child in detention. Each case comes up through the system and on to my desk, and I take that responsibility very seriously. However, the parent also has a responsibility to ensure that the child is not being used in the system. As was made clear by the example given by the hon. Member for Ashford, the perception is often as bad as the reality, and is sometimes worse. However, we cannot set policy precedent on the basis of an individual case. The Bill proposes to give us an even greater duty for the care of children than we already have. I think the House has welcomed that, and I am grateful for its support. I hope that the Committee will give more thought to the matter.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the police and ombudsman powers. We will, of course, consider his points and respond to them in Committee.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has followed the debate very closely, and that he has concerns about the citizenship proposals. I want to try to convince him, and others who share his view, that the idea of earned citizenship is—as I have already said—beneficial not just to the immigrant but to the wider community. I also think it obvious that making change may have unintended consequences. My hon. Friend has alerted the House to some of them, and the hon. Member for Eastleigh alerted us to potential unintended consequences in the area of volunteering. The House must consider that, but I urge it not to reject proposals for change that will improve the overall position because of concerns about unintended consequences, real though they may be. I believe that, between us, we can solve those problems.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh made a genuinely powerful case for the benefit of migrancy to this country. He gave us figures based on experience, and pointed out that this is a country of transition for many hundreds of millions of people. Last year, 285 million came in and out of it. Our border controls, only part of which are dealt with in the Bill through UK Border Agency powers, are backed up by the new regimes on fingerprinting visas—the biometric identity which is proven to be working—electronic borders and the reintroduction of border controls. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the past abolition of those controls.
The ability to analyse visa overstayers is critical. Without that and without the enforcement powers that the Bill partly gives us, the visa regime is worthless. That is why it must be seen as part of a wider strategy which includes the points-based system and, crucially, the sponsorship role of universities, colleges, employers and, indeed, individuals. The criticisms of the bogus colleges are, I believe, addressed by the introduction of the new scheme, but we have not hidden from the failures of the past under this and earlier Governments.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |