Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [Lords]

The tabloids used them as an example of what was happening. Clearly, a lot of other skilled people came from within the EU. The Government estimate that there are up to 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK. However, according to Migrationwatch UK a study by the London School of Economics in March 2009 suggested an estimate of more like 725,000, of whom 518,000 are based in London. Those figures prompt the question why on earth the Government have not included proposals to create an integrated border police capable of tackling this problem at source. That way, we would have sworn officers who could be recognised as such by the public. I would be interested to hear the Home Secretary's reasoning against a proposal that seems to go hand in hand with the Government's intention. The Government want to tighten up border security but do not want to be seen to use a Conservative initiative that would prove effective. A border police force would have all the necessary powers to arrest, detain and prosecute offenders. Only such a fully integrated border police force will allow the development of specialist skills in fighting people trafficking, illegal immigration, and drug smuggling. Illegal immigrants, however, are part of a wider issue of population. The Office for National Statistics predicts that the population will increase by 4.4 million to 65 million by 2016 and reach 71 million by 2031. Immigration is expected to contribute some 47 per cent. of that growth. Is such growth acceptable and when will the Government wake up to the reality of the situation and institute plans that the Conservatives have suggested for annual limits on economic migration? That aspect has been neatly summed up by the all-party group on balanced migration, which has stated that""There are two litmus tests for immigration policy. First, it needs to tighten up immigration controls so that British unemployed people are given a fair crack at getting jobs. Second, it needs to control immigration so that the UK's population does not hit 70 million in 2028. This Bill passes neither of these tests."" So, with regards to immigration, the Bill is a glorious opportunity spurned. The Government have not taken the chance to introduce a border police force, and they have not seriously considered an annual limit on economic migration. Members on all Benches, despite differences over content, would have welcomed a Bill that simplified the system. In fact, the Bill does little at all for our immigration situation save, as Migrationwatch UK has said, for""making the task of consolidation of existing legislation yet more complicated."" Let me turn to naturalisation and citizenship. When the Bill came before the House of Lords there was legitimate concern over the retrospective nature of the naturalisation process on migrants already in the UK and near the end of their qualification period under the old rules. I am amazed that the Government have not taken those concerns on board, and I gather that they wanted further debate on the amendment. In my opinion, there is no debate to be had. We are simply talking about the legitimate expectation of those people who are already here—it is an issue of fairness, and I have heard what the Home Secretary has said on the matter. The Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed its concerns in 2007 about retrospective changes to migration rules in a report on the highly skilled migrant programme. It recently went on to say:""We urge the Government not to repeat the unedifying spectacle of riding roughshod over migrants' legitimate expectations of settlement, which undermined many migrants' faith in the UK's commitment to basic fairness…We recommend that clear transitional provisions are made which meet the legitimate expectations of those already in the system."" The last time that the Government ignored that Committee, the Committee's concerns regarding highly skilled migrants were subsequently upheld by the High Court, and the Government were forced to do what they had failed to be persuaded to do in the first place, namely to honour the legitimate expectations of those who had planned their future lives in the UK on the basis of the law as it stood when they came to the country. That aspect was rightly picked up again by the House of Lords, and clause 39 is now in place, which provides that nothing in part 2 shall affect an application for indefinite leave to remain or for British citizenship made prior to the date on which part 2 is commenced. The clause also provides that nothing in part 2 shall affect an application for indefinite leave to remain that is made in the 12 months after the date on which part 2 is commenced. My noble Friend Baroness Hanham led the argument on the issue in the other place, and her comments are equally pertinent today:""The people who have faithfully adhered to the current rules and thought that they were firmly established on the road to citizenship should not now have the rug pulled from beneath their feet. They have an expectation of a timescale in which their naturalisation will be fulfilled."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 705.]" People would rightly feel angry, worried and betrayed by any retrospective moves. I have grave reservations about any retrospective legislation that would seek to punish or, in this case, place an even greater burden on people who have been following the law that the Government laid down. I should like to turn to the provisions on the common travel area, which is made up of the UK, Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. All nationals of those countries can travel freely within them. The Government have said that the CTA is out of date, and that the privilege of movement within the CTA may be abused by others. Although we must be aware of the potential dangers, we must be proportionate—a factor of which the Government seem to have lost sight. The CTA has been of great benefit to the peoples of the whole of the British Isles since partition in 1921, and it even survived through world war two. The Government's proposal is unenforceable, as the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic does not exist in any physical form. There are hundreds of tiny lanes with no visible indication of a border, and all the military and security installations have been dismantled. What we should be looking at, in close collaboration with the Irish authorities, is putting in place an upgraded electronic border around the whole of the British Isles. The Government's original suggestion in clause 46 was tantamount to the abolition of the common travel area, because the re-imposition of immigration controls would mean that entitlement to travel would have to be proven at the border, and so the panoply of immigration controls would operate there. As Justice has said,""immigration controls should only be introduced into a previous common travel zone where a case of strict necessity (rather than mere administrative convenience) can be made out."" The Government have manifestly failed to justify that action. The amendments put in place by the House of Lords must stand. The Lords Select Committee on the Constitution considered part 3 in detail. It said:""It is clear to us that the policy-making process that has led to clause 46 (now clause 48) has not been informed by any real appreciation of the constitutional status of the Crown dependencies or the rights of free movement of Islanders."" If the Government plan to reintroduce the provisions, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House what steps she and her Department have taken to rectify their lack of constitutional awareness. In short, I believe that the House of Lords has seen through a piece of legislation that is pretty shoddy in parts. The Bill is not brave enough to take on proposals that make sense, such as a border police force or an annual limit on economic migration, nor does it consolidate the maze of existing immigration legislation. I urge Members of all parties not to vote in favour of any retrospective legislation on nationalisation, which would be grossly unfair and disproportionate. Likewise, the Government have not made a good enough case for all but removing the CTA, and our noble Friends' amendments must stand.