Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that if there is a bidding war, it is not a war in which the Government are engaged.

This strategy has been in production for some time. As the noble Lord said, it is right for us to look carefully at what needs to be done to ensure, first, that those who are entitled to asylum actually receive the succour that this country has traditionally given. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness agree that it is also important that we have robust rules for those who would seek to abuse our system.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it is a matter for celebration that migrants who have come to this country have made an enormous contribution to the wealth, development and richness that we all enjoy. It was therefore a pleasure to highlight that in the Statement. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia made plain, it is also important that we acknowledge the fact that migrants have made an enormous economic contribution to this country. It was therefore a delight to me that that was underscored in the Statement.

However, in order to ensure that the whole of the community—all our citizens—is able fully to rejoice in that, we must ensure that the migrants who come to this country through legitimate means are welcomed in a way that is appropriate and that the methodology that allows them in is clear. The points-based system that both the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, welcomed has, rightly, already been tested with the HSMP, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said. That allows people to enter the mainstream in a way that has proved very productive.
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 581
 

Contrary to the noble Baroness's suggestion, it is not an 11th-hour package; it has been, like all good pregnancies, in gestation. Eventually, they come to an end and the baby is delivered, but one has to go through that period of gestation before one gives birth.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to say that Michael Howard was indeed the architect of many of the things that went wrong. It is right that we acknowledge that we inherited a poor situation. We had a backlog—

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we have had 20 minutes, which is the time allowed for the two opposition Front Benches and for her to reply before Back-Benchers have a chance to speak.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that I am entitled to reply, bearing in mind that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked—

The Countess of Mar: No, my Lords, it is an absolute.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Well, my Lords, then I look forward to replying more fully in due course.

5.17 p.m.

Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I welcome the Government's commitment not to derogate from the Geneva Convention. That is an important announcement, which my noble friend has reiterated.

Is there any thought of adopting the American green card system, which is much more certain about the rights of skilled immigrants? I myself went to America in 1961 on a student visa, which stated that, after finishing my degree, I could work for 18 months, after which I was entitled to apply for a green card. That was a clear rule, and I knew what I was going to do, although I did not apply for a green card. Would it not be better if that sequence of opportunities were offered to immigrants?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the green card system has proved attractive to a number of people. We have decided on the points system because we think that it best reflects our ability to monitor the needs of the economy as it changes. The points system can be adapted as we receive advice from the advisory group on the needs of the market at any given time. We can adjust the points system to allow for market flows. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, it would ensure that if there was a need for less-skilled and tier 3 workers, we could make those visas and opportunities available.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps in answer to me the noble Baroness could find time to reply to my noble friend's question. At the moment, about 250,000 people have come here to claim asylum and been refused asylum but are still in the country. What are the Government's plans to reduce that number?
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 582
 

The First Minister of Scotland wants many more immigrant workers in Scotland. He has said that on a number of occasions. Will the Government's points system, should it be implemented, limit the number in Scotland? Will it apply to Scotland, and will abolishing the low-skilled quota apply to Scotland? That is of great interest in Scotland. As the policy has been in development for some time, no doubt consultation has taken place.

My third question is: what will be the cost of student visas to stay on under the new arrangements?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that we have made a trenchant attempt to increase the number of returns of failed asylum seekers. We now return many more than were returned under the previous administration. We have removed 46,000, including illegal workers and those refused entry at the port. In 1996, the number of failed asylum seekers removed was equivalent to only 20 per cent of new unsuccessful claims. In the first six months of 2004, the proportion was estimated to be around 50 per cent. Much has been done about the returns procedure.

Scotland will have its own fresh talent scheme from later this year—the needs will be catered for in that scheme. We think that Scotland is an exemplar; it demonstrates what can be done to invigorate the community and promote activity by increasing and welcoming the number of migrant workers.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is very encouraging to hear her heavy emphasis in the Statement on the positive contribution made by migration, and that the ascendancy of positive over negative language in that context is crucial to the success of migration policy and good race relations policy in this country? Does she not agree that a transparently fair migration system is crucial in the age of global terrorism so that increasing numbers of alienated, disillusioned people do not become recruiting fodder for extremist manipulators?

Does my noble friend agree that we must take care in our emphasis on the importance of the contribution of skilled migrants, and ensure that we are not robbing economies that are desperately dependent upon those people at the very time when we are putting so much emphasis in our policy internationally on the importance of development? Does the Minister agree that we do not recognise honestly enough the tremendous contribution made to our way of life and economy by unskilled migrant labourers? A terrible aspect of that is all the abuse taking place in that context. Should we not hear more about that?

Finally, does my noble friend agree that, if we are to get it right, the priorities so imaginatively furthered and embraced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a fairer world economy and fairer world trade are fundamentally relevant to reducing the pressures for migration in the international community?
 
7 Feb 2005 : Column 583
 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend on those matters. I wish to reassure him and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we value the contribution made by unskilled workers to our economy. For that reason, we propose a four-tier system: tiers one and two, for highly skilled and skilled workers; tier three, for low-skilled workers, taking into account the additional labour from the new EU countries—that will be phased out; and tier four, for students and specialists. We understand that there is a breadth of need to be met; we hope to be able to encourage that in a way that is proportionate and appropriate for our economic development and skills base. I wish to make clear that my noble friend's comments are rightly made.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Statement, but, as someone who was involved in the passage of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, I am puzzled why, if the situation is as serious as the Government suggest, it was not brought before the House in 2002. The noble Baroness used the analogy of a long period of gestation; we can certainly understand that, but perhaps now we are talking not about the birth of a first child but about the birth of a fourth child.

During the passage of the 2002 Act we were very concerned to safeguard certain rights of appeal. Will the Minister assure the House that those rights of appeal, which were safeguarded in the end after a long struggle during the passage of the 2002 Act, have not been lost in the present government policy? Will the government policy now being put forward require further legislation?


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page