Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, in moving my amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. The contention of many noble Lords and many NGOs, including the UNHCR, is that the measures contained in the Bill will not achieve the objectives the Government hope will result. In addition, tightening immigration controls, including ending European Union free movement, is believed to be having a detrimental impact on the UK economy and public services. Worker shortages in the National Health Service and social care, and shortages in the agriculture, hospitality and construction sectors, are all believed to be the result of changes made to the Immigration Rules since the end of the Brexit transition period A points-based immigration system may allow unlimited numbers of highly paid workers to enter the UK, but what about lower-paid but essential workers who are now excluded? Amendment 138 requires an independent report to be laid before Parliament on the impact on the UK economy and public services of changes to the Immigration Rules since December 2020, and further requires that the immigration control provisions in the Bill are not brought into force until that has been done As I have said in debate on previous groups, a decade ago, the Home Office was processing more than twice as many asylum claims as it is now but had fewer delays and fewer successful appeals against its decisions. For the record, in 2002, 84,132 people sought asylum in the UK and in 2019 it was 35,737. There are also far fewer removals and far more illegal immigrants living in the UK than there were then. It appears that the Home Office is less efficient and less effective than it was a decade ago Amendment 141 calls for an independent operations management review of the processing of asylum claims in the Home Office and of the removal mechanisms for those whose leave to remain has expired. The review should be about accuracy and fairness as well as efficiency. My consultancy fees are very reasonable, but the Home Office might not consider me independent enough to carry out such a review. But seriously, we need to understand why the Home Office is not as effective and efficient as it was The Minister repeatedly cites the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the ability of the Home Office to operate effectively, although the number claiming asylum dropped significantly because of Covid as well. If the hold-ups are due to the short-term impact of the pandemic, there is no need for all this draconian legislation aimed at reducing the numbers claiming asylum. We need to establish the real reasons for long delays in initial decisions, and for the failure to remove those whose asylum claims have failed The Minister talked about what people voted for in 2019, by which I presume she meant "taking back control of our borders". Not only has visa-free entry from the EU and EEA countries continued since we left the EU, but citizens of 10 more countries have been added to those EU and EEA citizens who can now use the e-passport gates at airports, for example. Whereas before, these individuals would have had to supply the address of where they would be staying and demonstrate that they had sufficient funds to sustain them during their visit without working illegally, now they just waltz in, no questions asked. Of course, with no record of where in the UK they are going and no active follow-up if they fail to leave, it is possible for these individuals to remain in the UK indefinitely and to work in the grey market Amendment 191 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the number of people living in the UK in the past five years without leave to remain. The report would have to contain information on those entering with or without a visa, the type of visa if they entered using one, and the number of such persons who have been removed. If there are too many immigrants in the UK—the facts are contested, and I accept that public opinion may not reflect the facts—the public need to know how many of these overstayers are the result of failed asylum claims and how many are overstayers for other reasons Taking back control of our borders does not mean throwing them open to even more people and taking no effective action to remove those who overstay. Our contention is that asylum seekers are being unfairly targeted and stigmatised by this Government and this Bill. The reality is very different, but without the facts, no one can be certain. Amendment 193 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, makes a similar point, although the data she would require to be published is itself targeted on asylum seekers Before we take drastic measures that target the 6% of immigrants to this country who are asylum seekers, we need to know what is going on with the other 94% and with the people—estimated to be over a million—who are no longer legally in the UK. I beg to move Amendment 138.