Huhne on immigration

10.45.10am UTC (GMT +0000) Fri 25th Apr 2008

' . . We broadly welcome the points-based immigration system, as it will simplify the mess of different immigration schemes, which is all to the good . .'

Christopher Huhne (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat): I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He made a number of good points and reminded the House, for the first time in this debate, of the rather shameful anniversary of Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech and of how, because of the tolerance in this country, he was comprehensively wrong about the results of the policy about which he was complaining. He was also right on enforcement and absolutely right to remind the Minister of the importance of rights of appeal and due process, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches thoroughly support.

We broadly welcome the points-based immigration system, as it will simplify the mess of different immigration schemes, which is all to the good. We also hope-although we do not yet trust-that the system will dramatically improve what can only be described as the chaos of the current arrangements. The increased public concern over immigration reflects a lack of confidence that the Government know what they want, understand what they are doing or are delivering what people in this country need.

The most damning example of that chaos was the decision, made also by Ireland and Sweden, to allow immigration from the new member states of the European Union after 2004. The Liberal Democrats supported that decision on the basis of the Government's projections that immigration would be 13,000 people a year. In other words, on the Government's projections, immigration from the eight accession states would total some 52,000 to the end of last year. However, we now know that actual immigration has totalled 766,000.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour): The hon. Gentleman is a Member whom I respect on such issues, but I urge him not to play the numbers game. So what if 700,000 people have come here? Have they not contributed to our country?

Christopher Huhne: We should always be careful about the numbers game, and the right hon. Gentleman is correct to make that point. However, when an important projection that, after all, has so many consequences, which I shall describe later, is so wrong, the House and the Government have to take that into account.

Frankly, the scale of the error is breathtaking. Actual immigration was 1,373 per cent. higher than the forecast. In years of scrutinising Government projections, which I have to own up to as a former economist-I am sorry that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) is not here, as she is a great expert in the effect that differences between large numbers can have-I cannot remember another projection, even for difficult objectives such as borrowing, that was wrong by such an order of magnitude. As we know, Christopher Columbus thought that he had discovered India, when in fact he was in America. By comparison with the Home Office, he was a practitioner of pinpoint navigation.

Add your comment

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Is not one of the problems with the points-based system that it applies only to non-EEA countries and that huge influxes from the European Union therefore distort everything that we are trying to achieve?

Christopher Huhne: The chances of our having a huge influx from the European Union in normal years are minimal. However, I shall come to that point later, when the hon. Gentleman will perhaps want to intervene on me if he disagrees.

It is bizarre that even when it became clear that the estimates for EU immigration were wildly wrong, the Government did not take rapid countervailing measures. Clearly they could not do much to affect the flow from the accession states; nor would it have been right to do so. We in this country benefit enormously from the free movement of people in the European Union. Indeed, more British people live in other member states than other member states' nationals live here. That might have something to do with the sunshine or with other factors. Whatever the reason, pulling up the drawbridge on other EU nationals could cause a wholesale repatriation of British pensioners from Spain and Portugal, for example, which would be disastrous for our own public services and would deprive many of our citizens of an option that they clearly prefer.

However, it would be wise to use immigration flows from non-EU countries, over which we have some control, as a balancing factor. The Government have not done that. Therefore, net immigration-immigration minus emigration from the UK-of non-British people trebled from fewer than 100,000 a year in the early 1990s to more than 300,000 in 2006. That is a large, completely unplanned and unforeseen increase.

As I have said, the British people are a tolerant lot. We have been open to waves of immigration on a greater scale throughout our history than almost any other European country, and we have benefited enormously from that. Far from being an island fastness, our easy access to the sea means that we have always been more open than many other countries. However, one thing that the British people will rightly not tolerate is incompetence from their Government, but that is what we have seen in the mismanagement of immigration over the past 10 years.

Nor can the official Opposition escape responsibility in this regard, as it was the last Conservative Government who took leave of their senses and began the process of dismantling exit controls. Perhaps they thought that we did not need to worry about anyone leaving. However, their action ignored the disastrous consequence that we were no longer able to check whether non-EU visitors had overstayed their visas. An essential element of control was lost, and that is why the Liberal Democrats have argued that the Government must get a grip on the management of immigration through a national border force-an idea that has now been taken up elsewhere in the House-and the reintroduction of exit controls.

The results of the recent mismanagement were detailed by the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). They include local authorities not having the resources to tackle the needs of new communities, health authorities being unable to plan for the needs of their populations, and police services being stretched because population projections have been so far out. There have also been parts of the country in which particular trades have been hard hit. It is not easy for a trained brickie to find that their skills now earn only a fraction of what they got a couple of years ago. If the points-based system gives us a better grip on these random impacts of immigration, that will be all to the good, and a balancing factor between EU and non-EU immigration seems to be an essential part of that, alongside a greater effort to predict and respond to local impacts and to ensure that local authorities have the means to make the necessary adjustments.

The official Opposition have called for a national cap on immigration, which suggests that they have forgotten their other commitment, to the market economy. The needs of market economies are not always easy to forecast, and they are certainly impossible to plan. There has to be a flexibility, which a rigid cap would belie. With great respect to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who intervened to give us instruction on what it means to respect market economics and the price level, I have to tell him that when I was employing people in the City, there were occasions on which I needed to hire someone with particularly unusual skills that I could find only in New York or elsewhere. The idea that there was going to be a sudden market clearing because the price would go up was absolute nonsense, because it takes a number of years to train someone and to equip them with an economics PhD, let alone some of the other qualifications required. If the official Opposition's policy had been operating at that time, the impact on my business could have been devastating. We must not use excessively blunt policy instruments to score cheap hits in the tabloid headlines.

In addition, it is not obvious to me that all parts of the country have the same needs. That is a point that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) quite rightly made. It is another reason why a national cap might well be inappropriate. For example, there is a strong desire north of the border for Scotland's population to stop falling and, if anything, to rise. Scotland has more than one third of the UK's land area, but less than 10 per cent. of our population. Exactly the opposite situation arises in my own region in the south-east, where the density of population now substantially exceeds that of the most densely populated country in Europe, the Netherlands.

Moreover, we have arguably reached the limits of natural sustainability-for example, in water resources. We have had recent examples of the impact of drought in the south-east, and the UK as a whole-though primarily the south of England-has less available water per person than most other European countries. London is, in fact, drier than Istanbul, and Waterwise has pointed out that the south-east of England has less water available per person than the Sudan or Syria.

It may be strictly outside the scope of this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but surely we as policy makers must have some view about the sustainability of our own population-and I challenge the hon. Member for Ashford to answer that point. In turn, that must have some consequences for how the Government adjust the tap of non-EU immigration. I accept that the logic of ensuring that immigration is appropriate in different parts of the country may be to adjust the points system to take account of the area in which the proposed immigrant wants to settle, perhaps making visas conditional on particular travel-to-work areas in the first instance. One may not want to apply conditions subsequently, but it is a policy option that we should put on the table and discuss since the points-based system would allow for some variation in the points awarded according to the proposed area of work within the UK- [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) wish to intervene?

James Clappison (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Hertsmere, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a ridiculous policy. People cannot be admitted to this country on the basis of a restriction on where they move within it. As he well knows, EU law as well as English law-certainly in the long term-would prevent that.

Christopher Huhne: I am not sure that EU law would apply in this case, as we are talking about- [Interruption.] No, if we are talking about employment rights, it is already possible to restrict people on the basis of skills, for example, so it would also be possible to restrict people on the basis of the area and the needs of the economy. I am putting this argument forward because, as we heard from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, there is very clear evidence of substantial differences in the needs of different parts of the UK. Perhaps we should put that issue on the table for discussion.

Pete Wishart (Perth & Perthshire North, Scottish National Party): I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman a little. One feature of the Australian system is that the state Governments have control of immigration policy and recruit immigrants on the basis of their particular population needs and requirements. People are given access to specific states, but if they venture outside them to work, they are deemed to be illegal immigrants and returned.

Christopher Huhne: I am interested to hear that point. There is clear evidence that there are substantial differences from one part of the country to another, and the Minister referred to a point put to him by people in Newcastle, suggesting that there was a desire to expand the population there.

I also want to raise the issue of the potential impact of managed immigration on existing immigrant communities. I firmly believe that proper management and control of immigration is in the interests of all UK residents, and perhaps particularly of those who have arrived most recently. As some of the economic evidence suggests, new entrants compete most vigorously with those who have most recently arrived.

Clearly, however, some recent immigrant communities want others to join them, and it is important to the objective of successfully integrating our existing immigrant communities that the Border and Immigration Agency is sensitive in the exercise of its powers. I am not convinced that going guns blazing into Chinese or Bangladeshi restaurants at the peak hours on Friday or Saturday nights when they are busiest in serving their customers qualifies as sensitivity. Immigrant communities run businesses across this country, not least in the catering trade, which make an enormous contribution to our national life. I understand that the most popular dish in this country is chicken tikka masala, which I had not discovered during any of my visits to India, so it is very much an English innovation. Although enforcement of the immigration rules is crucial and does involve inspections, I plead with Ministers to ensure that people are treated with respect and consideration for their businesses and their reputations.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the frankly appalling behaviour of the Government with regard to the highly skilled migrant programme. Whatever the need to change the rules, there is absolutely no excuse for retrospection. There is no excuse for moving the goalposts in the middle of the game. If families have come here, uprooting themselves in the expectation of a set of rules that will allow them eventually to become British citizens, it is deplorable for Ministers suddenly to decide that those promises no longer need to be honoured. We abhor retrospective legislation. The Government must honour their obligations to the 49,000 people who have come here under the scheme. Some may have to leave under the new points-based system giving preference to younger people, although they have been the subject of a favourable court judgment.

Immigration has brought enormous benefits to this country, economic, social and cultural. We must continue to be an open and tolerant society that looks out at the world with confidence, and not turn in on ourselves, fearing the phantoms of xenophobia. But if we are to sustain that vision, which has been so much a part of our own history and success, it must be on the basis of two strong conditions. The first is the integration of immigrant communities in our society on the basis of our common language and shared values, and the second is management of the system that controls our borders in the interests of all of us. On both those objectives, the Government have fallen down lamentably. The Liberal Democrats merely hope that the points-based immigration system will be a step towards the remedying of past failure.