*PLEASE CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY* Baroness Angela Smith of Basildon, Shadow Home Office Minister Speech to Second Reading

of The Immigration Bill 10th February 2014

We know that there is considerable concern about immigration and we appreciate that at times the pace of migration has been too fast. The duty of Government is to manage immigration in a way that is fair and just to citizens and fair and just to those who wish to live and work in the UK. Even though we support some of the measures in this Bill it doesnt tackle the issues that could really make a difference and are of the greatest concern, and that a number of the measures fall what could be called the realm of unintended consequences in that they have a significant and disproportionate impact on law abiding British citizens, legal visitors and visa holders who are an asset and contribute positively to the UK. The Governments policy of managing and reducing migration is deeply flawed. Its net migration target is not targeting the right things. So highly qualified UK professionals who leave to work abroad is a Government success. And fee paying students, including those studying for Doctorates and undertaking valuable research, who no longer come to the UK but now pay fees to study and develop research in other European countries is also classed as a success. Thats not our definition of a successful well managed immigration policy. Its not just about numbers its about people and the contribution they make and also our international and humanitarian obligations, such as in the case of refugees feeling horror, torture and rape from Syria. We are in total agreement that we need to tackle illegal immigration. We need to do more to ensure that foreign criminals are deported, but illegal immigration is getting worse, and the Govt appears to have been remarkably lax in tackling it. Just last week Judge Richard Bray said that the Home Office and Border Force were hopelessly undermanned which had let to an Albanian national who, having been convicted of drugs and violent offences was imprisoned and then deported three times - and yet each time returned illegally to the UK to reoffend. My Lords that is where real determined and effective action needs to be taken. The number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by over 13% from 5471 to 4722. And between 2009 and 2012 the number of businesses fined for using illegal workers plummeted by almost half from 2269 to 1215 by 2012. So under this Government, the number of people stopped from entering the UK at our borders has halved, the number of people removed for breaking the rules is down by 7% and only half as many businesses have been fined for employing illegal workers. So either the extent of the problem has vastly reduced under this Government or the Government is incompetent in managing our borders and addressing the problem of illegal immigration.

Yet the response of the Government is not to look at tackling the problem at source. Its not to seek to effectively manage borders and combat people trafficking. Its not to examine whether the Government has deployed adequate resources or has cut to the bone making it harder for immigration officials to do their jobs. The Governments response is this Bill. The Governments response is to in effect outsource its responsibility for illegal immigration to landlords and nurses, for example. We have said time and time again that the Governments focus in dealing with immigration is wrong and ineffective on illegal immigration which leads to greater exploitation and abuse of immigrants, has a far greater negative impact on the UK as a whole and undermines public confidence. So while the Government has deliberately presided over a massive fall in the number of university students paying to study in the UK, students who contribute intellectually and financially, it has been totally ineffective in tackling shocking abuse in student visitor visas as highlighted in tonights Panorama programme. My Lords there are real concerns about some of the measures in the Bill. But we also have grave concerns about what is not in the Bill. Where are the measures that would really make an impact on illegal immigration? Where are the measures to protect workers from being undercut on wages or being put at risk from lax working conditions? Or from gang masters exploiting the weak and desperate to work? My Lords we welcome a sensible debate about managed migration and immigration and its impact on the lives of citizens and migrants. My Lords, where measures are sensible theyll have our support. For example we all want to see stronger action against sham marriages. We will apply three tests to the Governments proposals. Firstly, the evidence base. Secondly, the practicality and workability of measures proposed. Thirdly, the effectiveness and impact of those proposals, including on the wider population For example:The Government claims that its measures to tackle illegal immigration by in effect co-opting landlords as immigration officials will reduce housing available for illegal immigrants and therefore increase the number leaving the country. But it also admits that the costs exceed the benefits it can quantify and it has no idea how many illegal immigrants would be affected. It has no idea whether there will be any impact on the number of homes available to rent. The Bill is clear that landlords should not act in a discriminatory way. How will that work in practice? Many landlords already undertake checks. The Residential Landlords Association fear Landlords will have to cover their backs and avoid accusations of discrimination by examining identity documents of all potential tenants.

So will they all need to have a passport what about the 17% of so of British citizens who dont have one? What other documents would be acceptable how should landlords recognise them? What about the woman, fleeing a violent home, who doesnt have access to any documentation to prove citizenship? And what about, for example, students, who although studying here legally will be unable to present their passports to prospective landlords until they are in country but need to arrange accommodation before they arrive. And my Lords as conscientious as law abiding Landlords will be, the Government knows that it is possible to get it wrong. It is possible to make a mistake. When Minister Mark Harper employed his cleaner, he was confident that he had undertaken the appropriate checks on her nationality. He is an intelligent man. He knows the law. He would have done his utmost to comply with it. But he made a mistake. He got it wrong. How many landlords could make a similar mistake? So if the Immigration Minister can so easily get it wrong, when how can the Govt possibly think that each and every landlord in this country, whether renting one property or 100, is qualified to act as an immigration official. Good legislation has to work in practice which is why we will table amendments for a UK wide pilot to be undertaken, and will forensically question the Government on this and other measures. Clauses 33 and 34 on health are narrower than the Governments spin doctors have implied and the Govt already produced proposals on, including charging for access to GPs for example to tackle what it calls Health Tourism. These proposals are more limited but still require further examination. Clause 33 makes provision for a new charge as a condition of certain visas and Clause 34 redefines who is liable for charges that is those without Indefinite Leave to Remain. My Lords, the principle that visitors to this country who are not entitled to free health care can be charged by the NHS is already established. But the money collected via the Visa system will not go to the NHS, but to the consolidated fund. Bizarrely, this could lead to greater costs and less income for the NHS, if you take into account that a number of those would pay or have insurance, and the Govt now intends to replace this with a visa charge that wont go direct to the NHS. And, by redefining those liable to pay will that mean that those legally working in this country and paying taxes will also have to pay for healthcare? There are a number of areas to probe further in Committee on access to services. Two further issues want to raise with Minister today. The first is in Part 2 of the Bill Clause 11, which removes the right of appeal for first tier tribunal cases. We know the system is a mess. Successive Reports from HASC and the Chief Inspector or Borders and Immigration have highlighted problems. My Lords, there are serious delays and the quality of decision making is poor. Most recent statistics reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance decisions were successful appealed last year. These are cases where the Home Office has got it wrong but instead of trying

to address the initial decision making problems are now seeking to remove the right to appeal these wrong decisions. This really seems like the Government doesnt like losing appeals so wants to abolish them Given that the Governments own estimate of the cost of the new system of Judicial Review that it seeks to put in place is around 100 million, wouldnt it be better to put more effort into getting the initial decision right? When this Bill was debated in the other place, just 24 hours before Report stage a new amendment was tabled by the Government, which has now become Clause 60 of this Bill on deprivation of citizenship. Currently, governments can remove citizenship from individuals in certain circumstances but only if they have citizenship of another country so that they are not left stateless. The Governments new proposals remove that condition so that the Home Secretary can deprive a naturalised citizen of their citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is conducive to the public good as that person has conducted themselves in a manner prejudicial to British interests. My Lords, we accept that there can be a problem with those who may become naturalised British citizens as adults who then abuse that right and may not even live in the UK. But there are serious questions, including those about the impact on national and international security, that must be addressed and it is a very extensive and significant power to give to a Secretary of State. We will table an amendment that this clause should include Judicial Oversight. My Lords, our approach to this Bill will be to support sensible, practical measures: To question those measures that appear ill thought out, unworkable or place disproportionate burdens on law abiding citizens, without seriously addressing the real problems To suggest improvements where we consider the measures proposed are fundamentally flawed And to propose new measures that really could help tackle problems of illegal immigration. My Lords I hope that the Government will listen. ENDS