Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary a short while ago. The Statement repeats the substance of the Prime Minister's interview on television yesterday, of what the Home Secretary said on television yesterday and the article by the Prime Minister reproduced at length in the press this morning.

Eight years ago, the Labour Party manifesto stated that,

The Prime Minister promised to clamp down on the thousands of people who settled in Britain illegally. Four years later, the manifesto promised that,

Since 1999, the Government have pushed through three Bills on asylum and immigration. I bear the battle scars of two of them. In 2002, we had the last of those and Mr Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, said that it was the final stage in the Government's careful development of strategy to deal with the problems of asylum and immigration. But here we go again, another strategy at the eleventh hour before a general election.

Today, the Government say that they will introduce a points system for immigration. We welcome that—how could we fail to do so? After all, that proposal, like many of the proposals announced today, was called for some nine months ago by my right honourable friend David Davis.

Migration is part of a competitive, dynamic economy. But there is a clear economic case for limited migration of skilled people coming into and going out of Britain and a points system should manage that more effectively. We are in broad agreement with the Government on this. But can the Minister explain why a number of temporary labour schemes introduced under this Government have no departure controls? Do the Government know how many people remain in Britain having completed their employment under these schemes?
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 576
 

Today, the Government propose to reintroduce embarkation controls. However, we know that the electronic system being proposed today has yet to complete its pilot stage. Furthermore, it is designed to work alongside an identity card for which legislation has yet to be passed. I eagerly await Second Reading in this place. The debates on that in another place have not yet covered the Government in glory.

Can the Minister tell the House what contingency plans the Government have in place if the e-borders pilot project—Project Semaphore—fails? Can the Minister explain why it is to be available only at the 10 ports and airports considered at the highest risk? Surely the danger is that illegal traffickers will simply smuggle people in through other uncontrolled points of entry. What do the Government plan to prevent that happening?

The Government claim that electronic embarkation controls will help with the removal of failed asylum seekers. Despite the Home Secretary's Statement today, the fact is that the Government's record to date on removals is dismal. In 2003, 17,985 people were removed compared with 60,045 applicants and dependants who arrived in Britain. Targets have been constantly missed, then dropped and missed again.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us that he had set new targets. At least that is what I assume he meant by the clear as mud statement that:

I would welcome that if it means what I think it might mean—that by the end of this year, the Government would aim to remove more people than are currently making asylum applications. But, even if they managed to achieve that modest target, how long will it take them to remove the 250,000 people who are estimated to be in the country illegally? That is in addition to those making applications in the current year and those who will do so next year and be turned down.

I am also intrigued by the announcement today in the accompanying booklet Controlling our Borders that the Government have made a welcome U-turn on their approach to those applying to come to this country who are found to be carrying tuberculosis. I understand that the Government now say that on high-risk routes they will screen visa applicants for TB and require those who are diagnosed to seek treatment before they would be allowed entry to the UK. Questions today must be: first, which are those high-risk routes; and, secondly, if the person is required to seek treatment before he gets entry to the UK, does that mean that he has to complete that treatment and prove that he is no longer carrying any disease of that nature?

The Government also say that they will abolish appeals against the refusal to grant student visas. I am intrigued by that. I assume that that was part of the proposal that went through in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so it seems rather old news.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 577
 

Does the Minister have any solution to the problems that are currently caused by the way in which these applications are processed overseas? Is the Minister aware, for example, that in places like Chennai year upon year applications are commonly screened by officers who are sent out as temporary officers to carry out judgments. They simply do not have the experience or training and knowledge of the conditions there to know how to reach the right decision. Therefore, a significant number of wrong decisions are made. How will the Government deal with that?

I recognise that at least we should now have a register of approved institutions to which students may apply. So I have to repeat a question I asked last summer. I got absolutely nowhere then, but I hope that I shall have more success now. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office is now operating that approved list? Will the Government publish it? If not, why not? Surely, it would be sensible for everyone to know what an approved institution is for the purposes of student visas.

I am intrigued by the noble Baroness's extra comment that a Written Statement has been laid before the House with regard to recovering the full operating costs of applying for visas. Is that in the Government's response to the consultation that was launched at the end of last year about future increases in student visas, or is this in addition to what may still be a further response?

Finally, which of the measures announced today would require legislation, either primary or secondary? Some kind of legislation would at least require parliamentary scrutiny. Which of these measures can be achieved by behind-the-scenes administrative action, such as changing the Immigration Rules?

I regret that the announcement today has all the hallmarks of an eleventh-hour package. I may—and do—agree with some, perhaps even many, of the proposals. I shall look through the booklet with interest to see just how detailed those proposals may be. The fact remains that on past experience of at least two of the Bills in this House, I certainly do not trust the Government to put these proposals into practice in a way that is fast, firm or fair.

5.4 p.m.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we have had four attempts on immigration and asylum policy in the past 10 years, and we still do not have it right. It is not surprising. The constant emphasis on the numbers game clouds the real issues facing the Government. I say right away that the issues will not go away.

However, first I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. There are many issues with which we disagree, but we welcome the positive economic case for immigration. Immigration has been a success story, and we should be proud of it. Every country has a right to determine its immigration policy, and the United Kingdom is no exception. Events of the past years have demonstrated total
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 578
 
inconsistencies in the way immigration matters are handled. It is no good successive governments denying responsibility. The buck must stop with them.

Of course, a general election is in the air. What worries me is that at the highest political level we have failed to single out the benefits and have concentrated on the negative aspects of immigration and asylum policies. This is not the time for me to comment on the Conservative proposals; suffice to say that Michael Howard has been the architect of the present mess. During his time as Home Secretary, he reduced immigration staff by well over a thousand, and the mess has continued ever since.

I have no doubt that if we had a properly managed system only those who were entitled to be here would be. We would not need accommodation centres, detention centres or policies that take away basic human rights under the Geneva Convention. Effective policies on skilled managed migration and on the employment of economic migrants would establish different routes of admission into the United Kingdom without damaging those who genuinely are victims of torture and persecution. That is why it is necessary—there is public support for it—to design a system that helps refugees and deals effectively with those who have been rejected. We do not therefore object to that, with sufficient safeguards. We should deal with removals of those who have been rejected. We should never forget that immigration and asylum involves human rights. At the root of the problem is the concern about the poor quality of the initial decision-making process of the Home Office.

We have no objection to a points-based system. This is a technical change—nothing new. The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) has been running for three years and uses a points system that is similar to the Australian system. The HSMP allows people to enter the United Kingdom without a firm job offer to seek work.

As far as we can tell, at the moment the Government's proposal seems to extend a points system, similar to the one which operates under HSMP, to mainstream work permits and the sector-based scheme. Does the introduction of a points system across the board imply that more people will be able to enter the UK without a firm job offer as long as their skills are in demand?

The SBS is essential to low-skill sectors. My concern is that the Government will reduce the numbers coming in. That would have the undesirable effect of reducing: first, the ability of restaurants to fill vacancies, leading to closures and loss of income to the economy; and, secondly, increasing the temptation for those sectors to use illegal workers. Work permits are supposed to be granted only where a UK worker cannot be found for the job. So the introduction of a points system for measuring "desirability" raises the question of whether the system worked properly in the past. There has been a huge increase in the number of work permits granted since 1997, but we have always accepted the Government's explanation that that was in response to market demand.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 579
 

I pose some questions to the Minister. I welcome the e-borders initiative, but I am aware that biometric visas have been in the pipeline for a while and are actually an EU and not a UK initiative. I welcome the commitment to remove more failed asylum seekers, but, given that the previous target of removing 30,000 a year was dropped because it was unachievable, what will the new removals target be? Surely, the Government must have some idea of the impact of their policy.

I agree with the principle of a points-based system focusing on the skills that are most in demand, but can the Minister reassure us that provision will continue to be made for lower-skilled sectors, where there are just as many labour shortages? What will happen to the sector-based system that brings in low-skill workers for the hotel and restaurant trade? Does the Minister not accept that there is a case for expanding the scheme? Does she not agree that the abuse of the asylum system by economic migrants will continue, unless the Government offer legitimate routes of entry for low-skill workers?

Yesterday, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said on the BBC:

Where are the abuses in the immigration system, in his judgment? Exactly which immigrants are a burden and how? Why were they not removed, if they failed to meet the criteria for admission to the United Kingdom? Does he not understand that that is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of people who have come to the United Kingdom legitimately, whose labour and dedication benefit our economy to the tune of £2.5 billion a year, the equivalent of 1p on income tax? If he is talking about people who come to the United Kingdom legitimately having abused the system, it is the Government who have been at fault.

Does the Home Secretary accept that workers who have been here for four years put down roots and that we offer them the right to permanent settlement for good reason? Is he not concerned that he is destroying an important incentive for people to come in the first place; and an important incentive for them to integrate into our society, rather than remaining apart from it? Will that restriction apply to applicants from the United States, Canada and Australia?

The proposed increase in fines for employers found to be employing illegal immigrants from £1,000 to £2,000 per head is laughable when there were only two prosecutions last year. Have not the Government tolerated illegal working and the payment of wages below the statutory minimum because that provides our industry with a competitive advantage?

Will the Minister confirm that there will be no further legislation to restrict asylum seekers' rights of appeal? Under the proposal he has outlined today, the Home Secretary has suggested an independent economic review to assess how many jobs are needed.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 580
 
That is the positive aspect of immigration and something for which we have argued since last summer. We will ensure that the findings will be used independently, rather than politically.

Can the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary has no plans to end the right to settlement after four years? Does she accept that workers who have been here for four years with their families put down roots in the community and that it would be wrong for them to lose that right?

On asylum, I am glad that the Minister has rejected the Tory idea of quotas. I should hate to be an asylum seeker who has been tortured but find that I am number 15,001 on the list. Will the Minister guarantee that no targets will be set for the number of asylum seekers coming to this country? Can the Minister also confirm that there will be no changes to asylum seekers' rights of appeal? Although we welcome plans to speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers, we hope that there is no target set for that purpose.

Finally, does the Minister share my frustration that a bidding war is taking place on immigration and asylum between the Government and the Official Opposition? Is it not important to speak up for the positive role that migrants play and to defend at all cost the principle of welcoming refugees to our country?

5.13 p.m.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page