---

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the welfare of the children is paramount. If their parents took the same view rather than sending them here as unaccompanied asylum seekers, we would not have such a large number of them arriving. They go straight to the welfare services and are not covered by the Home Office catchment. This is a serious issue that involves many hundreds of children. Their welfare is paramount. We are very concerned with their health, with ensuring that they are not exploited and with their education and their future.

I am afraid that I am not carrying figures on bail safeguards. That part of the 1999 Act has not been introduced. We do not have the experience. It assumed automatic bail. We are increasing the detention and removal capacity. People are still free to apply for bail. One of my constituency cases—I can still call it that—who has been in detention a long time applied successfully for bail last week. The system is working, but we do not think that the plan of automatic bail envisaged in the 1999 Act is justified. We shall remove that part of the Act, except for the two sections referred to in the White Paper.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, given that the mother-child relationship is primary in the transmission of language

7 Feb 2002 : Column 753

and culture, will any requirement to show competence in English extend also to dependants and families accompanying applicants for immigration?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me an opportunity to put that issue to rest, I hope. The English language requirements have nothing to do with asylum seekers. People with genuine grounds for fleeing, such as a well-founded fear of persecution and torture, could arrive in this country not knowing a word of English other than "help" and be successfully accepted as refugees under the 1951 convention. Once they have received help, succour and sustenance, their main requirement may be to get back and help to knock out the tyrants who caused them to flee their country in the first place.

The language issue is relevant only to those seeking nationality and UK citizenship. Not every asylum seeker wants British nationality. Not every person coming to this country for work, for a holiday or under the work permit scheme wants nationality. For some people, seeking UK citizenship may involve giving up their own citizenship—although we would not force that because we are a dual nationality country. That is a big step. The requirement would apply to the main applicant and to spouses. There is a limit to what can be done with children. The requirement relates only to those seeking citizenship. The rules for citizenship cover residence and other issues. We are not talking about people who claim asylum being covered by that proposal.

Lord Renton: My Lords, although many of the questions that have been put to the Minister so far have dealt with asylum and asylum seekers, the White Paper also deals with nationality and immigration and mentions that we shall have legislation later this Session. In formulating that legislation, will the Government bear in mind that in the past 50 years we have already admitted several million people from various parts of the world and that as a result some of our urban areas now have a different ethnic composition from that which they used to have? Will they also bear in mind that we have problems of education, housing and employment? Unless we are rather careful, a great increase in immigration will increase those problems still further.

Having said that, I greatly welcome the oath of allegiance, to which the noble Lord referred, on page 111 of the White Paper. There are other potential factors that are in the national interest. However, in preparing the legislation, in the interests of the people already in this country, whatever their ethnic origins, the Government must ensure that we do not have large numbers of people still coming here.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a balance to be struck. It is clear from how the chapters are set out. People are coming here anyway. One of the chapters deals with illegal working. That does not necessarily mean only people who are in the country illegally, although there is a correlation. We are seeking to open

7 Feb 2002 : Column 754

up legitimate, up-front, in-your-face employment routes to this country, particularly in certain areas in which we are short of people. One of the annexes to the White Paper sets out the massive shortages that we have in some of our industries. They are worried about a clampdown on illegal working because we may close down an industry by mistake. If we can have up-front, managed migration for economic reasons on a range of issues that are set out in the White Paper and then clamp down on the traffickers in humans by tightening up on the border controls, we can achieve a balance so that fewer people are encouraged or feel that they are forced into the hands of the traffickers in order to buy a ticket to come to the UK to work illegally, if that is what they were intending to do. The one may balance the other. I cannot prove that, but our intention is to adopt such a balanced approach.

The noble Lord was complimentary about the words of the pledge. There is nothing new about that. Those who seek citizenship today—other than those who have it by birth—already have to take an oath. We are not introducing an oath; we are modernising the oath and introducing a ceremony and the language requirements.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the decision to close Campsfield House. Will my noble friend say a little more about the gateway idea, which seems interesting and imaginative on the face of it? My noble friend more or less suggested that it may be an experiment at one location. If it works at the first location, is the intention to extend the idea of gateways to further locations? Will they be in Europe and in other countries? Can he give an assurance that people there will be given the same rights of appeal as they would have within the UK?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot answer those questions on the gateway. My noble friend must not assume from what I said earlier that we are talking about one location. We may be, but we do not know yet. We are in discussion with the UNHCR on that. I said that to start with the programme would be extremely modest. I think that I gave a figure of about 500 a year. That is extremely modest. I do not know the way that applications will be made. We shall choose the people in those situations. We will be accused of cherry picking but I believe that we are entitled to make the choice. I cannot say about normal rights of appeal because we will offer places in conjunction, on a quota system. I am not sure that appeal rights would be justified.

I welcome the noble Lord's comment about Campsfield House, which does not meet the required standards. It is by far the smallest of the five removal centres, so we can easily absorb its capacity at the centres coming on stream and those we plan to build this year.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the White Paper contains bad and good. I sometimes think that your Lordships' Chamber and the outside world are very different places. From the media today, one might conclude

7 Feb 2002 : Column 755

that this was a draconian set of new controls over immigration and, by extension, over ethnic minorities in this country. The publicity that the White Paper has received so far has done nothing but harm to community relations in respect of the impression given over the blame for riots and asylum problems.

I declare an interest as my wife is an ESOL teacher. What provision are the Government making for the considerable extension to ESOL classes that will be necessary if the proposal for English tests is adopted? Do the Government know the current length of the waiting list and the extent of the extra resources that will be put into ESOL?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the plan is to provide English language classes through the further education system. We have some 450 excellent colleges providing services to millions of our fellow citizens. We are having discussions with the Department for Education. No one is denying that provision will have to be resourced. As we are imposing a requirement in respect of the English language, it is incumbent on the Government to provide the appropriate facilities and resources.

The noble Lord's opening remarks were just the kind that can inflame the situation. He is generating his own headlines. Nothing in the White Paper justifies his comments about the impression created outside. The opposite is true. If one wants to cherry pick to make a point, that is fine—but that is not the purpose of the White Paper.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it has taken 30 years or more for my noble friend Lady Golding and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and my noble friend the Minister to achieve the war crimes section of the White Paper? It has scarcely been mentioned but as a former war crimes investigator, I welcome those proposals. It is important to do what we can to stop Britain being regarded as the world's ultimate haven for war criminals. That was so in the past, with the result that thousands of Nazi war criminals—some in the Waffen SS—were admitted to this country. Few of them have been prosecuted. Today, people are coming here from all parts of the world without the sort of checks that the White Paper suggests will be imposed. Can my noble friend say, in light of that good news, how long he expects it will be before legislation on the lines of the White Paper is brought before the House and put into force?

---