HL Deb 07 February 2002 vol 631 cc742-57

3.33 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I wish to make a Statement on nationality, immigration and asylum.

"Last October, I informed the House of the new strategic direction for this crucial area. Today, I am publishing a White Paper to be followed by legislation in this Session. Significant progress has already been made: the first induction centre was opened on 22nd January in Dover; registration cards were launched last week and are now being issued to new asylum seekers; we have launched the highly skilled migrant programme; new border security controls are in place, following my announcement of 19th September; and, as of last week, asylum seekers are no longer being held in prison.

"I can also confirm today that vouchers will be replaced by cash by the autumn, together with action against fraud and the development of a more robust, faster and efficient system.

"The White Paper takes forward our agenda by offering a holistic and comprehensive approach to nationality, managed migration and asylum. That recognises the interrelationship of each element in the system. No longer will we treat asylum seekers in isolation or fail to recognise that there must be alternative routes to entry into this country.

"Our policies must command trust, confidence and respect from the wider community. The British people demand coherence in policy and efficiency in administration.

"Our starting-point has been the development of a sense of belonging and community. Confidence in our identity and citizenship allows us to welcome those who come to the UK as refugees or legal migrants more readily.

"To give meaning and value to the acquisition of British nationality, I am confirming today that we will introduce a number of key reforms. There will be a new light-touch arrangement to ensure that those who take on nationality have the language skills and basic knowledge of our society needed to contribute fully. There will be ceremonies at which the confirmation of citizenship can be celebrated. We will modernise the oath of allegiance, to provide new wording to make clear the fundamental rights and duties of citizenship. It will be a citizenship pledge.

"The White Paper also sets out the routes by which men and women can work legitimately in this country. In today's global economy, that is crucial to our competitiveness and prosperity. My new proposals include the following: the development of routes for seasonal or short-term casual working; consultation on reform to the working holidaymakers scheme to make it less restrictive; and enabling students graduating in the UK to switch into the work permit scheme.

"The White Paper sets out the end-to-end revisions to the asylum system. The new process will track and support asylum seekers from induction, through reporting and accommodation, to removal or integration.

"Work has started on the new trial accommodation centres, which will be mandatory for those designated asylum seekers who are claiming public support. The centres will offer education, healthcare and legal and interpreting services. Opportunities for volunteering and other purposeful activities will also be available, as will appropriate language support. In the case of those refused asylum, secure removal centres will enable us to protect the integrity of the system through early removal.

"Without an agreed and legitimate route for asylum seekers to enter this country, it has been inevitable that men and women desperate to seek refuge would put their lives at risk. That is why I am announcing today that we will set up the new gateway for those seeking to settle in Britain. It will be operated under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Legitimate refugees who come via the gateway will no longer have to attempt hazardous journeys across the Channel. That would be a major step in regularising legitimate entry alongside our managed economic migration programme. In addition, to secure a robust foundation on which we can build, I intend to undertake a full, comprehensive audit of existing asylum claimants. Long-standing cases will receive urgent attention.

"The 'White Paper also sets out substantial changes to the whole asylum appeals process. Far too many appeals and judicial reviews are designed to delay and frustrate removal. I am therefore announcing today that we will simplify the one-stop appeals process; set closure dates for appeal hearings to stop multiple adjournments; and make the immigration appeal tribunal a superior court of record. In addition, we will increase the capacity of the adjudication system by 50 per cent, to a total of 6,000 cases a month, during this year. We will expand the number of removal places to 4,000.

"I can also confirm that I intend to close Campsfield House. That outdated centre is no longer appropriate in the 21st century. The detention places will be transferred to the new high standard removal centres.

"My reforms will protect fundamental rights, stop abuse of the system and enable the more effective administration and processing of claims. Those working in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be able to do their job more effectively, and I expect both greater productivity and efficiency.

"Let us be in no doubt. We need to reduce the pull factor by clamping down on both clandestine entry and illegal working. The Proceeds of Crime Bill will ensure that we can seize the assets of criminals involved in smuggling and trafficking people. In addition, the maximum penalty for those facilitating illegal entry will be raised to 14 years.

"I can also confirm that we will legislate to tackle trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This will be a stepping stone to more wide-ranging legislation dealing with sexual exploitation. In addition, we will introduce tougher border controls and step up action, together with our European and international partners.

"A high level steering group of business and trade union leaders is being established to take forward proposals to tackle illegal working; and as I announced on Tuesday, we intend to launch a consultation on entitlement cards to be published in the spring or early summer.

"Alongside those practices we will act against the worrying practice of fraudulent marriages. We will increase the probationary period from one to two years; we will consult on a new 'non-switching' provision to prevent people applying to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage after entering through a different category; we will encourage communities with a culture of arranged marriages to look to those already resident in the United Kingdom.

"Finally, I know that the rules on family visitor visas have been a cause of great concern to Members of this House. I have an open mind on how best to improve the system, not least for those seeking urgent entry on occasions such as bereavement. The Government would therefore welcome ideas on how best to provide guarantees or bonds. That might be undertaken not simply by individuals or families, but by the provision of a community bond. I recognise that we have to get this right and I am therefore encouraging positive suggestions on how best to proceed.

"Our future social cohesion, economic prosperity and integrity, depend on how well we rise to the global challenge of mass migration, communication and flight from persecution. We have a history of trade and migration that has brought us wealth and prosperity over the centuries. Nevertheless, building trust and confidence to secure the support of the British people is essential.

"By doing this we can create a country that is open to skills and enterprise, but not to exploitation. This is a Britain with a balanced approach to nationality and immigration; a country of which we can all be proud".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

3.41 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, the House is grateful to the Minister for repeating a Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place shortly after noon today. I thank the Minister also for the early arrival of a copy of the White Paper and the speedy arrival of an early copy of the Statement. They were particularly helpful. My first reaction on hearing that there was to be a Statement on this subject today was to regret that I had not paid sufficient attention to the contents of newspapers over the past two or three days, owing to some concentration on the police Bill. I am grateful that the Minister's help makes my task much easier.

In this matter we should be clear that we all have the same ambition; that is, to create a situation in regard to immigration and asylum where we can all have confidence that the integrity of the British community and citizenship is not under pressure. Regrettably, for the past few years that has not been the situation.

We welcome the proposals to explain British citizenship to migrants and to introduce some language teaching and teaching of the constitution, so that when we adopt these people into our country and they become citizens they know rather more about our ways. The ceremony of adoption will be much better than the arrival of a brown envelope in the post. That is a wholly welcome proposal.

Perhaps I can turn from the common ground to ask a number of questions. We have all had trouble with the Dublin convention of 1991, which governs the European Community's practice with regard to immigration and asylum. Can the Minister, when he responds, give us a little more information on what progress is being made in the negotiations with other members of the Community to try to re-establish that convention on a more practical footing in this modern world? It has changed considerably since the agreement was made a decade ago.

Also, can the Minister explain exactly what the "gateway" is to be that will operate under the auspices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? Is it expected to pick up all asylum seekers? I doubt it. Is it a virtual system which will operate through our diplomatic missions across the world? Is it something that we are hoping to establish on this side of the Channel, in which case we shall be shutting the stable door after the horse has entered? Or are we expecting to be able to establish something on the other side of the Channel, in which case we shall need good co-operation from the French? It will be interesting to hear exactly how the gateway is expected to work.

Another welcome announcement in the Statement was the consultation on entitlement cards. It will be interesting to know whether that will be consultation on a pilot scheme that is to operate with asylum seekers or whether it is aimed in the longer term at the possibility of it becoming a national scheme. That matter has exercised Members of this House on both sides for some considerable time. It will be useful to hear more about it in the Minister's response.

We welcome the moves to accommodate asylum seekers in a better and more controlled way. If law and language facilities are available as well, that will be all to the good. But what is not in this paper is the problem of illegal immigrants. We do not know how much illegal immigration takes place. We do not know how many illegal immigrants live in our community. Will the systems outlined by the Minister do anything to bring those numbers under control? We all have our thoughts on what the position is but none of us knows for sure.

Finally, we know that there is to be a Bill on this issue this Session. Will that Bill arrive in Parliament in the summer and in this House in the autumn? If so, we shall have a lot of work to do in a hurry. Or is the Bill in preparation and likely to arrive somewhat sooner? Those are relatively small questions but the answers will be enormously helpful to myself, my colleagues and the whole House.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the new holistic approach to the matters of immigration, asylum, nationality and citizenship. Too often in the past we have found that those issues have been used as political footballs rather than a constructive approach being taken. The Statement contains proposals which are, to an extent, a mixed bag. However, we shall approach them constructively. I am delighted that a trace of liberalism now seems to be filtering through the Conservative Party on this issue.

The Government are introducing a number of major concessions. We welcome the highly skilled migrant programme. But I warn the Government that, though generally it is a good idea, the proposal may lead to a dangerous brain drain from the countries which desperately require some of those people. We should be aware of that.

We also welcome the proposal that asylum seekers will no longer be held in prisons. Vouchers have now been replaced. Only a few days ago I put a question to the Minister asking whether there was a legal way in which an asylum seeker could enter this country. He gave me a very blunt answer—"No". I am delighted to see that he has given the matter some considerable thought and that there is now a gateway being created under the aegis of UNHCR. It is to be hoped that this will be a legal way in which persecuted people can claim their rightful place in a civilised society.

If we wish to command trust, confidence and respect from people in the wider community, it is right that they should be listened to. I trust that there will be ample consultation with them. I say this because in the past 10 years immigration/asylum legislation has been introduced on four separate occasions. At every stage we warned the Government about vouchers and prisons and about almost every issue that the Government are now discarding. If only they had listened to us during the late nights when we were dealing with the Committee stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

There are a number of issues on which we need further information. What proportion of asylum seekers will be housed in the new accommodation centres and how many will be housed under the current dispersal arrangements? What importance is attached to overhauling the dispersal system?

I understand that there is a proposal in the document which refers to educating the children of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. This would not be right if education provisions are available in local schools. I hope the Minister can assure the House that we will put right our dispersal system before we do anything which may affect the education of these young people.

There is also the issue of improving the decision-making process. What plans do the Government have in this respect? It is a shame that it was only on a recount that we suddenly found there was a much larger backlog of asylum-seeking applications than first envisaged by the Home Office.

Can the levels of detention be kept in line with European averages? What hail safeguards will there be? The Government introduced statutory bail hearings under the 1999 Act, but they now give the impression that such hearings may be abolished. Will judicial review continue to be available? What about the resources required to deal with the backlog?

We welcome the new legitimate routes, but it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the numbers the Government envisage will make use of them.

As to citizenship, it is right that there should be an oath of allegiance. But it should be a two-way process. The Government should establish very clearly the rights and duties of those who seek citizenship, but, equally, such people should be protected.

More importantly, we welcome the ways and means whereby people can communicate much more than they have been able to in the past. But will the resources be available? Would it not be better to look for solutions from within community structures? There are examples of supplementary education being provided by communities, and this could assist in the task.

Two proposals cause us concern. I hope that the Home Office will not act as a marriage bureau. It states that it will not allow the switching arrangement whereby people in this country seek a change of status by getting married here. It is not the Government's job to determine who is or is not rightly married. That would create a tremendous amount of problems within the community. Equally, there is evidence that people seek their partners from within their communities. Again, it is not for the Government to put this kind of diktat on minorities in this country.

3.54 p.m.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome that the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Dholakia, have given to the White Paper. I shall do my best to respond to some of their detailed points.

I cannot give an update of where we are on the Dublin convention negotiations. It is a matter for the EU and we need to establish a more cohesive system which is accepted across Europe. The intention, in theory, was a good idea—but it did not quite work out in practice and therefore we need to have further negotiations.

As to the gateway and the work of the UNHCR, the numbers entering under this scheme will be very modest to start with. I do not want to give the House the impression that we are talking about thousands of people. We envisage perhaps 500 in the first year, a number similar to those accepted by other EU member states. For example, last year the Netherlands settled 500, Denmark 500 and Sweden 1,800. The United States, of course, settled considerably more and Australia settled 8,000. We envisage a modest start.

The scheme will not affect the situation at Sangatte. That is an issue between ourselves and the French. The modest numbers we are talking about will not affect Sangatte. The system is designed to provide a gateway, which does not exist at present, for people in the trouble spots of the world where the UNHCR is involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the consultation on entitlement cards. I should make it absolutely clear that this has nothing to do with asylum seekers. The new asylum application registration card is, from last week, being issued to all new asylum seekers. All those currently inside the system will certainly have their cards by the autumn. That has nothing to do with the entitlement card; it is specific and wholly exclusive to asylum seekers. The three paragraphs in the White Paper which refer to the entitlement card are for general information.

A consultation paper will be published in the spring/ early summer. I cannot say how extensive it will be, but it will be extensive enough to say, "This is a bad idea. Do not touch it", or, "There are ways of doing it". In other words, it will not say, "Here is a scheme. What do you think about it?", or, "Here are two schemes. Which one do you want?". It will also say, "No scheme at all".

We need to put these paragraphs into the White Paper now because it will enable our officials to talk openly with industry. We cannot do this surreptitiously behind closed doors and then bounce out a consultation paper. That would not allow us to have proper discussions with industry. The use of technology is crucial in an exercise such as this. Therefore it will be spring or summer before such a paper is produced. I am sure that it will be extensively debated.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about accommodation centres. At the moment, we have a plan to trial four centres. In fact we have only got a plan to trial four because that is all the money we have received from the Treasury to deal with the scheme. It is important because it will be a new system and we want to see how it works, if it works.

The four centres will have a total accommodation capacity of 3,000. If we use the spaces twice a year, we can put through only 6,000 people. That is less than 10 per cent of the inflow of new asylum seekers. We would expect to have an initial decision and the result of an appeal within six months, enabling us to use each space twice a year. That will make for a faster process.

There is reference in the White Paper to more work being carried out on border controls. New technology equipment is now in place at the borders. We are able to use some equipment in France. We have excellent co-operation from our French partners, both in juxtaposed controls and with the British staff—both immigration and others—on the other side of the tunnel.

As to the timing of the Bill, all I can say is that it is under preparation. That is not to say that we are preparing it in advance of the consultation on the White Paper. There is an excellent list at pages 106 and 107 of the White Paper where the issues for which we need to legislate and those for which we do not are separated out. That will be useful for Members of this House and the other place. It will enable them to see that the White Paper goes beyond matters for which we need to legislate. The Bill will be modest. Our hope is to introduce it in the other place by early April. It may not come to this House before the Summer Recess but will be dealt with in the spill-over period. I keep telling people that this House sits longer hours and has shorter recesses. After this year, they will certainly believe me. That is the rough timing that we have in mind. I cannot pre-empt the timing, but the work is going on.

There is a consultation period in relation to the White Paper; namely, up to 21st or 22nd March. The time is short, it is true, but our intention is to legislate this Session and not to give the constant excuse that parliamentary time is not available.

I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He said that White Paper is a mixed bag. It is. It is tough and tender. We make no apology for that. The title of the paper is Secure Borders, Safe Haven—indicating that we are not going to be "ripped off", but that this country is a safe haven, not "fortress Britain". That is the balance that we are seeking to strike.

The highly skilled migration programme started as recently as 28th January. Therefore, I have no idea how many people have applied. It is not our intention to raid the third world of skills. My colleagues in government would be up in arms had the programme been so designed. Only time will tell whether we have got the balance right in setting the requirements for people to join in. We shall know this time next year whether the programme has been a success, or whether it has been neutral in its effect.

We are genuinely open to consultation. This morning, I met almost a dozen NGOs and an issue was raised regarding ministers of religion—a point not mentioned in the White Paper. In reply to a particular question which I shall not repeat, I said: "Yes, take the opportunity of the consultation to raise that aspect if you wish". So nothing is excluded.

I mentioned the percentage of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. To begin with, it would be less than 10 per cent. If the system works—if we are satisfied that it works and can demonstrate as much—our intention would be to run it for those who need support. It would be run under the national asylum support system and there would be more than four centres—possibly a dozen or 16—subject to the approximate size of each centre, the average housing about 750 people.

It is not our intention that people remain in a centre for more than six months. In other circumstances I could not defend that. If there are families there with children, we want them to receive education, but we are not talking about the long term. The best place for children to be educated is in mainstream schools. They would not be in the accommodation centres for more than six months. Therefore, after that time they would be in the dispersal system, subject to the decisions made, and the children would enter mainstream schools. We are in discussion with the Department for Education and Skills. There are also legal obligations concerning children, including the stipulation that such children should not be treated differently. That aspect is important.

The current backlog of claims is just over 40,000, which is considerably down. We carried out a manual count, as I announced to the House in September. It meant that we started 18 months ago with a bigger backlog than we had thought—probably close to 200,000.

Turning to bail safeguards, I was asked about these when I met the NGOs. We shall not proceed with Part 3 in total. There are two sections—the section numbers escape me; I believe they are 51 and 53—that we shall retain. The presumption always was that bail would be automatic. We are not preventing anyone applying for bail. That is not the intention. There will be an increase in removal capacity. By definition, if we are going to run the system, we need extensive removal capacity. It will increase from the current figure of 1,500 to 2,800 when the new centres currently in preparation come fully on stream—I refer to the five centres, including Campsfield. That capacity of 2,800 will be increased to 4,000. Campsfield will close some time next year. It is very small, even claustrophobic compared to Yarlswood and the other new centres. We can easily assimilate the Campsfield capacity in the new capacity. No one will be denied an application for bail. The position has changed since the 1999 Act.

The independent appeal tribunal will be converted to a superior court of record. Clearly, there can be appeals beyond that on points of law. But in respect of judicial review, we are seeking to remove delays from the system. Presently, there are in-built delays across the whole system. We want people to put in a good, robust, comprehensive claim for asylum, have it considered fairly and dealt with quickly; and if there is a need for an appeal, to have that dealt with as quickly as possible—and not to allow, at each step, more and more appeals with new information, exploited by the legal industry, to the disadvantage of asylum seekers.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the oath as it currently is, or the "pledge" as it will be known. It is set out in draft on page 111 of the White Paper. I freely admit that we have modelled it on the current Canadian oath. We have not invented anything new.

People who seek citizenship—British nationality—already swear an oath. The amount of ignorance outside is unbelievable. That already happens. But where does it take place? It takes place in a solicitor's back office. A form is filled in, it is sent off to Croydon, and the certificate comes back from Croydon. That is no way to become a British citizen. It almost sullies the process. We are seeking to have a pledge, using modern language, as can be seen from the draft. We seek to have that take place in a ceremony at a register office, possibly with members of the person's family, or with others who are seeking citizenship at the same time. The point of taking the pledge is the point at which the person will become a British citizen. The words are, "from this moment on". That language is not normally associated with this country. That is why we have looked at examples in Commonwealth countries. At present, an oath is taken in a solicitor's office, but the person is still not a British citizen. He or she still has to wait for the brown envelope to come back from Croydon. We want the process to mean something.

We also want the process to indicate that people are becoming part of the UK family—maintaining their own integrity, individuality and cultural identity, but having a basic knowledge of the language, a basic knowledge of the society and the ethics of the society that they are seeking to join. There is no compulsion to apply for nationality; that part is voluntary. The part that is not voluntary is having a knowledge of the English language. That is already included in the rules, but attention is not paid to it and it is not policed. Therefore, we want to create a process of which we can be proud, as can those who seek to join us in citizenship.

The question of resources is always difficult. There has been a massive increase in resources over the past couple of years. For example, we have doubled the number of staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, there has been extra training and more decisions are being taken. We are seeking extra resources in regard to some of these issues in the spending review for which negotiations will take place shortly.

We need the extra resources for what may seem a minor point, but it is one to which I and my noble friend Lord Janner will pay particular attention. I refer to the issue of war criminals. I do not mean those from the last war but in the future. The issue remains. We cannot afford to be in the position of having modern war criminals ending up in this country who have lied in order to come here, and whose citizenship rights we can do nothing to remove. The amount of resources is modest, but we need to obtain them.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that the Home Office should not be offering marriage guidance. No, it does not. As a government, we do not seek to tell people whom they should marry. But we do have the right to say where they should live. That is the difference. If marriage is used for the purpose of coming into the country and is not genuine—although all such marriages appear "genuine" because the ceremony is genuine—the amount of switching in the first three months in terms of visitors is phenomenal. We are not talking about a few hundred. It is literally tens of thousands. Then there is the issue of the probationary period. It is currently a year. We intend to change that to two years. It is less likely that a bogus marriage could survive for that long. That is not say that people are in bondage. Noble Lords laugh, but the point is important. The ceremony is genuine, but if the marriage is bogus it will not last for two years. Therefore, we can take the appropriate action. We also want the domestic violence concession to be more widely known in cases of hostage-taking or domestic violence. That is a serious issue.

Given that people will often talk only about the measures that they do not like, I should also point out that we are proposing a relaxation for people who have been well established in long-term relationships by removing the need for a probationary period in such cases.

4.10 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that the welfare of children of asylum seekers should be paramount? This is a matter of fundamental importance to the Refugee Council, which I had the honour of chairing some years ago. Secondly, will my noble friend think again about the important issue of bail safeguards? How many people are affected by it? Does the department have sufficient experience of the people who are applying for bail in this regard?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the welfare of the children is paramount. If their parents took the same view rather than sending them here as unaccompanied asylum seekers, we would not have such a large number of them arriving. They go straight to the welfare services and are not covered by the Home Office catchment. This is a serious issue that involves many hundreds of children. Their welfare is paramount. We are very concerned with their health, with ensuring that they are not exploited and with t heir education and their future.

I am afraid that I am not carrying figures on bail safeguards. That part of the 1999 Act has not been introduced. We do not have the experience. It assumed automatic bail. We are increasing the detention and removal capacity. People are still free to apply for bail. One of my constituency cases—I can still call it that—-who has been in detention a long time applied successfully for bail last week. The system is working, but we do not think that the plan of automatic bail envisaged in the 1999 Act is justified. We shall remove that part of the Act, except for the two sections referred to in the White Paper.

Lord Quirk

My Lords, given that the mother-child relationship is primary in the transmission of language and culture, will any requirement to show competence in English extend also to dependants and families accompanying applicants for immigration?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the noble Lord gives me an opportunity to put that issue to rest, I hope. The English language requirements have nothing to do with asylum seekers. People with genuine grounds for fleeing, such as a well-founded fear of persecution and torture, could arrive in this country not knowing a word of English other than "help" and be successfully accepted as refugees under the 1951 convention. Once they have received help, succour and sustenance, their main requirement may be to get back and help to knock out the tyrants who caused them to flee their country in the first place.

The language issue is relevant only to those seeking nationality and UK citizenship. Not every asylum seeker wants British nationality. Not every person coming to this country for work, for a holiday or under the work permit scheme wants nationality. For some people, seeking UK citizenship may involve giving up their own citizenship—although we would not force that because we are a dual nationality country. That is a big step. The requirement would apply to the main applicant and to spouses. There is a limit to what can be done with children. The requirement relates only to those seeking citizenship. The rules for citizenship cover residence and other issues. We are not talking about people who claim asylum being covered by that proposal.

Lord Renton

My Lords, although many of the questions that have been put to the Minister so far have dealt with asylum and asylum seekers, the White Paper also deals with nationality and immigration and mentions that we shall have legislation later this Session. In formulating that legislation, will the Government bear in mind that in the past 50 years we have already admitted several million people from various parts of the world and that as a result some of our urban areas now have a different ethnic composition from that which they used to have? Will they also bear in mind that we have problems of education, housing and employment? Unless we are rather careful, a great increase in immigration will increase those problems still further.

Having said that, I greatly welcome the oath of allegiance, to which the noble Lord referred, on page 111 of the White Paper. There are other potential factors that are in the national interest. However, in preparing the legislation, in the interests of the people already in this country, whatever their ethnic origins, the Government must ensure that we do not have large numbers of people still coming here.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, there is a balance to be struck. It is clear from how the chapters are set out. People are coming here anyway. One of the chapters deals with illegal working. That does not necessarily mean only people who are in the country illegally, although there is a correlation. We are seeking to open up legitimate, up-front, in-your-face employment routes to this country, particularly in certain areas in which we are short of people. One of the annexes to the White Paper sets out the massive shortages that we have in some of our industries. They are worried about a clampdown on illegal working because we may close down an industry by mistake. If we can have up-front, managed migration for economic reasons on a range of issues that are set out in the White Paper and then clamp down on the traffickers in humans by tightening up on the border controls, we can achieve a balance so that fewer people are encouraged or feel that they are forced into the hands of the traffickers in order to buy a ticket to come to the UK to work illegally, if that is what they were intending to do. The one may balance the other. I cannot prove that, but our intention is to adopt such a balanced approach.

The noble Lord was complimentary about the words of the pledge. There is nothing new about that. Those who seek citizenship today—other than those who have it by birth—already have to take an oath. We are not introducing an oath; we are modernising the oath and introducing a ceremony and the language requirements.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I welcome the decision to close Campsfield House. Will my noble friend say a little more about the gateway idea, which seems interesting and imaginative on the face of it? My noble friend more or less suggested that it may be an experiment at one location. If it works at the first location, is the intention to extend the idea of gateways to further locations? Will they be in Europe and in other countries? Can he give an assurance that people there will be given the same rights of appeal as they would have within the UK?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, I cannot answer those questions on the gateway. My noble friend must not assume from what I said earlier that we are talking about one location. We may be, but we do not know yet. We are in discussion with the UNHCR on that. I said that to start with the programme would be extremely modest. I think that I gave a figure of about 500 a year. That is extremely modest. I do not know the way that applications will be made. We shall choose the people in those situations. We will be accused of cherry picking but I believe that we are entitled to make the choice. I cannot say about normal rights of appeal because we will offer places in conjunction, on a quota system. I am not sure that appeal rights would be justified.

I welcome the noble Lord's comment about Campsfield House, which does not meet the required standards. It is by far the smallest of the five removal centres, so we can easily absorb its capacity at the centres coming on stream and those we plan to build this year.

Lord Greaves

My Lords, the White Paper contains bad and good. I sometimes think that your Lordships' Chamber and the outside world are very different places. From the media today, one might conclude that this was a draconian set of new controls over immigration and, by extension, over ethnic minorities in this country. The publicity that the White Paper has received so far has done nothing but harm to community relations in respect of the impression given over the blame for riots and asylum problems.

I declare an interest as my wife is an ESOL teacher. What provision are the Government making for the considerable extension to ESOL classes that will be necessary if the proposal for English tests is adopted? Do the Government know the current length of the waiting list and the extent of the extra resources that will be put into ESOL?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the plan is to provide English language classes through the further education system. We have some 450 excellent colleges providing services to millions of our fellow citizens. We are having discussions with the Department for Education. No one is denying that provision will have to be resourced. As we are imposing a requirement in respect of the English language, it is incumbent on the Government to provide the appropriate facilities and resources.

The noble Lord's opening remarks were just the kind that can inflame the situation. He is generating his own headlines. Nothing in the White Paper justifies his comments about the impression created outside. The opposite is true. If one wants to cherry pick to make a point, that is fine—but that is not the purpose of the White Paper.

Lord Janner of Braunstone

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it has taken 30 years or more for my noble friend Lady Golding and the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and my noble friend the Minister to achieve the war crimes section of the White Paper? It has scarcely been mentioned but as a former war crimes investigator, I welcome those proposals. It is important to do what we can to stop Britain being regarded as the world's ultimate haven for war criminals. That was so in the past, with the result that thousands of Nazi war criminals—some in the Waffen SS—were admitted to this country. Few of them have been prosecuted. Today, people are coming here from all parts of the world without the sort of checks that the White Paper suggests will be imposed. Can my noble friend say, in light of that good news, how long he expects it will be before legislation on the lines of the White Paper is brought before the House and put into force?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, when I joined the Home Office, I had resigned nominally as honorary vice-president of the all-party war crimes group but I did not stop working. I do not claim any credit. The work on war criminals was continuing. There had been discussions and meetings between the former ministerial team and the all-party group. The issue needed picking up and dusting down but I assure my noble friend that the measures implied by the section on war crimes will be in the legislation being introduced in April.

Lord Alton of Liverpool

My Lords, in declaring an interest as director of the Foundation for Citizenship at Liverpool John Moores University, I strongly welcome the provisions in Chapter 2 concerning the teaching of citizenship. Can the Minister say more about how that teaching will be discharged and by whom? I welcome also the proposal in Annex B for an affirmation or oath of loyalty. The words used there are simple and clear and place proper emphasis on the teaching of duties and responsibilities. I welcome the Minister's comments about common shared values being celebrated in a proper ceremony.

As to Chapter 5, will the Minister give a firm commitment today to incorporating in whatever legislation is eventually laid before the House the definition of people trafficking from the Trafficking Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime? Does the Minister agree that that would help to persuade countries where people trafficking routes have their origins of the international obligation to tackle trafficking and to assist the Government's proper objective of stamping it out?

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the White Paper is very much a strategy document and foreshadows several consultation papers on various issues. I do not know how many but probably half a dozen. We are not being prescriptive but genuinely want to consult. Our intention is to make use of our excellent further education colleges. One will not pop along to the Home Office for citizenship classes because it is not competent to deliver that quality of education. 'The further education system will be brought on stream and resourced.

I do not carry around the definition for which the noble Lord asked—and it is easy to locate. I assure the noble Lord that the definition of people trafficking, as opposed to that of smuggling, will be delineated in the legislation. That needs to be done because we shall be upping the sentences for anyone involved in people trafficking. We expect the courts to take a robust line, which is why we shall increase the maximum sentences.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville

My Lords, I counted a score of individual announcements in the Statement that I am delighted to welcome unreservedly. There has been disproportionate asylum-seeker pressure on individual local communities and their authorities. Does anything in the Statement promise alleviation in that regard?

Pursuant to one of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will students from the third world automatically get transferred to the work permit scheme? Finally, does the Minister detect any recovery of self-confidence and morale in the Immigration Service? That is potentially a key factor in the success of the policies.

Lord Rooker

My Lords, the dispersal arrangements will continue. We are not abandoning dispersal away from London and the South East, although it is true that we have some special rules for young people. We plan to pilot four accommodation centres. Noble Lords will have seen the list of eight potential sites. Others will be added before a decision is made. Those sites are away from London and the South East. We do not want a return to the days when those areas were under pressure, so dispersal will continue. If, in due course, the system comprises exclusively accommodation centres, they will be away from areas that caused problems in the past. We want to even up the pressure on authorities, not place a greater burden on those with a disproportionate share at present.

I am not sure that student transfers to the work permit scheme will be automatic. The present discretionary policy allows individuals who cease to be students to opt into work. That has not been an upfront policy, so we do not know the scale of applications. We will get a better idea of the situation by including the policy in the immigration rules and making it known more publicly that we will operate that policy. As it will be possible to opt into work permit-type arrangements, that option probably will not be open to all comers. The decision will depend on various factors. Although the arrangements are not necessarily directed at students from the third world, neither are those students ruled out.

As for morale in the Immigration Service, I visit immigration ports of entry as often as I can. A couple of weeks ago, I spent five hours at one port of entry on a Friday, and five hours at another on a Saturday—at Gatwick and at Heathrow. The staff are high-quality people. Although many of them have joined only recently, because of the extra resources, they truly enjoy their work. They are also always telling me how to do things better. We have very good people, and we are doing what we can to ensure that their terms and conditions are good. We want to ensure that they are not overwhelmed because we have failed to provide resources for one part of the system so that it is a misery for them to come to work each day. We want it to be a joy to work each day.

We have done much dispersal within our own system in the immigration and nationality directorate to Liverpool and to Leeds. We are ensuring that staff have the type of conditions, such as the provision of crèches, that are available to people in the South East. We are working to ensure that conditions are good.