Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, it goes without saying that the first and, indeed, the last duty of the state is the protection of its citizens. It is the responsibility of the state to determine who comes and who goes and what obligations have to be met. However, in the exercise of that duty, the state must have due regard to its national and international obligations. I am not sure that this Bill meets that test. I say that because the underlying culture of the Bill heralds a move from human rights to citizens’ rights; in other words, it flies in the face of some of our national anti-discrimination and international human rights obligations. I understood the Minister to say in his introduction that the Bill is human rights compliant. Perhaps he can explain how the differential benefits will apply to probationary citizens. As I understand it, the denial of certain emergency benefits on grounds of nationality requires justification as provided for in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Bill creates two classes of citizens for the United Kingdom: on the one hand, the citizen with full legal, social and economic rights and, on the other, a probationary citizen with restricted legal and social rights. It is my experience that people do not mind a tough, firm immigration policy, but what people need is a fair immigration policy. For instance, can the Minister tell the House whether the denial of social rights to probationary citizens includes the denial of medical treatment? Will he go a step further and agree to the publication of the list of those rights that would be denied to probationary citizens? The intention of the draft Bill was to consolidate existing legislation on immigration and to simplify our current immigration laws in the UK. We now have a Bill that is narrower in scope than was envisaged in the Government’s draft legislative programme. Perhaps what we now have is, in a description used in other areas of discussion, a coat-hanger Bill, on which the opportunity is provided to hang large swathes of regulations in the longer term. Others have commented on some of the details of the Bill and it was my intention, too, to look at the motives and some of the language used. However, having heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, who is not in his place, I do not intend even to try to do so, as he summarised well the culture of what immigration policy should be about. I will say this, though: it is my view that some of the language is calculated to deter others from making a home in the United Kingdom. I will not repeat the stories told many times in this House of the benefits that immigrants have brought to this country. There is a consensus that migration is essential to our economy. Placing disincentives on immigrants to plug the gap and take jobs that Britons will not perform will harm an already damaged economy. It is a matter of concern that some of the language used does not inspire but deters. Here, I declare an interest, like others in this debate. I arrived here many years ago—in 1954—as a 16 year-old. I did my national service and I hope that I have made some contribution. I had an interesting experience on my return from Kingston, Jamaica, just yesterday. In 1954, I arrived at immigration and customs control; yesterday, I arrived at border control. When I indicated that I had travelled in from Jamaica, at one point in the conversation I thought that the result from the cricket match over the weekend would be a reason to deny entry. However, when I convinced the officer that we were on the same side, as I was in fact in the Caribbean as a representative of the England and Wales Cricket Board, we smiled at each other and agreed that we would win next time. Oh yes we can. In a number of areas, the Bill implies that immigrants are less deserving or less worthy than those born as British citizens. I ask myself whether I would have come to the UK if I was among those who had to prove their worth. Do British citizens have to prove their worth to live here? The cardinal test for this Bill will be the test of fairness. Will it protect the liberty of all of us who live in the United Kingdom? The Bill should introduce a policy that is firm but fair. However, it is not seen to be built on the policy of fairness; it is seen to be driven by fear—fear of public opinion, fear of those who do not look like the majority and fear of extreme political parties. It was that same fear that led us down the path of the abortive 42-day pre-charge detention. To some degree, this Bill throws tolerance and respect out of the window. Its language, its proposals and its very motivation are about fear. The debate on the Bill should not be about quotas, numbers or systems. That is not the starting point. The starting point must be about the principle. As a nation, we must be governed by principle, not by fear.