UK Borders Bill

We all recognise the contribution made to the economy by many of the economic migrants from the A8 countries. I daily see the contribution made by many of them; they may work in our local supermarkets, gather our food, process it—I see them working extraordinarily hard in some of the food processing plants in the east Midlands—and they may be involved in more professional capacities: they may enter our homes as expert plumbers; I have seen them sorting out the plumbing at Westminster. The Government seriously underestimated the numbers of those who would come to this country from A8 countries. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I took part in the debates before the statutory instruments were introduced. We were, I have to say, appalled by the complacency that the Government displayed. In a sense, that lies at the heart of this. Insufficient preparation was made. Although I hate to do so, I must take issue to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He painted a picture of people not staying long. Recent research has shown that people are now deciding to stay. Originally it was thought that they would come and return fairly quickly but they are staying in greater numbers. I do not see that as a problem. If people are contributing to our economy and society, they should be welcome here as part of that society. When the noble Lord moved his amendment, he—and those noble Lords who supported him—tried to impose on the Government a significant raft of information and advice that should be provided. I declare an unpaid interest as president of my local citizens advice bureau. In the past, I worked for some 20 years as a volunteer adviser. I would not wish to see the Government seizing control of information provision. That is rather like an old-fashioned Eastern European approach. I rejoice in the fact that voluntary organisations and local authorities around the country have a different approach to the provision of information. It may reflect local needs. It is important, as noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have said, to ensure that quality information is appropriately provided. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, pointed to good practice in Cornwall. I am sure that we could all find examples of good practice. I declare an interest: I live in Woking, and must commend it on the way in which it provides written information and information on its website in a variety of languages that are appropriate to the area. We should rejoice in diversity, provided that the quality is there. I also recognise the costs involved. I found breathtaking the way in which the amendment was introduced as being of no cost; I also heard talk about it being low cost. There are significant costs involved in providing such information. A lifetime ago—about 20 years ago—I was involved in proposing to the then Conservative Government, on behalf of the National Association of Citizens’ Advice Bureaux, a system by which leaflets from the DHSS, as it was then called, would be translated into five languages. In order to do that, I had to provide a business model. That taught me the costs of providing that information in time and outsourcing. If noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches think that this is either low cost or no cost, that shows why their Treasury predictions are shot to pieces half the time.