|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
News >>
Promoted by Ginny Heard on behalf of Mid Sussex Conservatives, 5 Hazelgrove Road, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3PH |
Mid Sussex
MP leads Commons debate on 'population and immigration' Nicholas Soames MP yesterday (Tuesday) led a House of Commons debate on 'Population and Immigration' with a speech called 'visionary' by a fellow MP. Philip Hollobone (Conservative MP for Kettering) who spoke in the debate, described Nicholas Soames' speech as follows: "Indeed, I believe that, in years to come, people will look back at the speech today by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex and regard it as visionary, for telling us what will happen and reminding us that politicians down the years have ignored the pleas of our nation on this issue". [Hansard col. 12WH]
Nicholas Soames’ speech:
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): I am
grateful for this opportunity to debate the impact of immigration on the
population of the United Kingdom-a debate that needs to happen more
regularly. I called for the debate because our country truly faces a
turning point of historic proportions, which will profoundly affect the
future of our children and subsequent generations.
In fact, this is a crisis, of which members of the public
are instinctively aware and about which many of them are rightly uneasy,
but the Government are in almost total denial about it. I refer to the
impact of mass immigration on our population, which will inevitably have
the most serious consequences for our public services, our environment,
our quality of life and even the future stability of our society. In some
places, that is clearly already the case.
I want to deal with three issues: first, the reliability
and relevance of population projections; secondly, the impact of
population growth at the projected level; and thirdly, the measures that
the all-party group on balanced migration, which is co-chaired by me and
the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), wishes to see put in
place to tackle the problem.
First, on population projections, I regret to say that the
Minister of State has become increasingly wild and incautious in his
remarks as the debate has developed. In a recent article for the Sunday
Mirror, he said-this is a particularly vulgar quote-
"If Cameron wants to put a cap on our population, then he'd
better start issuing condoms, getting euthanasia clinics in place or even
introducing a Chinese style 'one-child' policy."
This is much too serious an issue for it to be a matter of
"Cameron", even in an election year. The facts should not be politicised
in that way. That is why I and others formed the all-party group-it now
numbers 40 Members, some of whom, I am grateful to say, are in their
places this morning-to press for an objective, careful, rigorous and
humane approach to immigration and for cross-party agreement on what needs
to be, and what must be, done.
The Minister's approach also ignores the fundamental fact
that if present levels of immigration continue, immigration will account
for 68 per cent. of our population growth over the next 25 years. The
reality is that immigration and population have become inextricably
linked. I regret to say that the Minister's remarks are a very
unimpressive attempt to camouflage the failure of the Government's
immigration policy.
Let us examine the facts. The Office for National
Statistics-the official body responsible for these matters-projects that
the UK population will reach 70 million in 20 years' time. The
Government's response is to wriggle; they say that projections are not
forecasts. Of course they are not, but they do tell us what is likely to
happen in the absence of a major change of policy.
2 Feb 2010 : Column 2WH
The Government also say, quite correctly, that some ONS
projections have been wrong in the past. Of course they can be wrong, and
the further ahead they look, the greater the risk of error. That is why
the Government like regularly to quote a 1965 projection of the population
in 2000-35 years ahead-which assumed that the baby boom would continue and
which was therefore seriously wrong. However, on a 20-year time frame, the
ONS has been accurate to within plus or minus 2.5 per cent. over the past
half century. At the very least, that suggests that its projections should
be taken seriously. It is absolutely intolerable, and an unedifying
spectacle, to see Ministers attempting to rubbish the work of valued
public servants just because it does not fit their political narrative.
What distinguishes our present situation from any other
period in our history is the massive impact of immigration on the size of
our population. The well-known waves of immigration in past centuries were
not remotely on the scale that we are seeing at present. The Huguenot and
Jewish immigrations were spread over about 50 years and amounted to only
about 1 per cent. of our population at the time. The east African Asians,
who have been so spectacularly successful here and who have integrated so
well, numbered 27,000, spread over two years.
Net foreign immigration into this country is now at 21,000
a month. That amounts to nearly 1 per cent. of our population every two
years-25 times higher than at any time in the last 1,000 years. As a
result, immigration now heavily outweighs the other two factors-births and
deaths-in terms of population growth.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): I ask my
hon. Friend to reflect, either now or later, on how that net immigration
of 21,000 compares with the number of people returning or coming from
overseas and registering with GPs. That figure has reached 600,000, but
the maximum number for people returning to this country is 69,000. That
indicates that immigration is substantially higher than the Government's
immigration figures suggest.
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who
makes an extremely important point. Of course, we are talking about not
just those who register, but the large numbers who, as we know, do not
register or appear in the figures.
Death rates are fairly steady. Birth rates vary more
widely. Since reaching a historic high in the baby boom of 1964, the total
fertility rate has fluctuated within a fairly narrow band.
Migrationwatch, which has done so much to raise the tenor
and rigour of the debate, has done research for our cross-party group. It
has done some calculations on the effect of varying the birth rate while
holding the death rate and net immigration constant at the level of the
most recent principal projection by the ONS. Those calculations
demonstrate that even if birth rates fell to the lowest level for a
century, our population would still hit 70 million, not in 2029, but in
2036. Of course, the likelihood of a fall in the birth rate is reduced by
the fact that one in four births is now to foreign-born mothers, who have
35 per cent. more children on average than British-born mothers.
The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable: the only way to
limit our population is to bring immigration down substantially. Indeed,
it must be reduced from last
2 Feb 2010 : Column 3WH year's figure of 160,000 to 40,000 or less if we are to avoid a population of 70 million. It is also important to understand that failure to bring immigration under control will mean a continually growing population of well beyond 70 million, and even up to 80 million or 85 million, in the latter part of this century.
What is the Government's response? They tell us that
immigration is already coming down, partly as a result of their new
points-based system-"partly" is the word. Net foreign immigration fell by
80,000 between 2007 and 2008, the last year for which statistics are
available. Of that decrease, 70,000 was due to a greater number of eastern
Europeans returning home. That, of course, had nothing to do with the
Government's immigration policy, because eastern Europeans are not subject
to it. Even that decline is now in some doubt, however, because a Polish
professor is suggesting that any return of migrants to Poland has been
much smaller than British figures suggest. As for the points-based system,
these are early days. We await the outcome for 2009 with interest.
What is clear, however, is that tier 4-students-is in
serious difficulty. The BBC quoted a freedom of information request
showing that the British high commissions in Mumbai, Delhi and Dhaka
issued nearly 20,000 student visas between June and August this year. It
went on to quote an Asian immigration lawyer, who said that
"the majority of these students are not genuine, especially
from the Punjab. They come here to work in the guise of student visas".
He said that he was now worried that the problem is causing
great resentment among the local Indian community who settled here in the
1960s.
"There is some tension in our community",
he said.
It is true that the Government have removed a couple of
thousand educational institutions from the list of potential sponsors, but
the checks on individual applicants are still far too weak. Perhaps the
Minister will be good enough to tell us when we may expect to see the
Government's review of student visas, which was originally promised for
last December. While I am on the subject of the points-based system, I
shall take the opportunity to commend the Government on one significant
step forward-their proposal to introduce a second points-based system for
economic migrants who decide that they would like to settle in Britain.
That will introduce a welcome element of flexibility to the issue of work
permits without, in the long term, adding to our population.
I have focused on the numbers because they are a vital
element in the debate. They are what the Government seek to ignore or
dodge, as the mood takes them. However, they cannot be dodged and must not
be ignored. That brings me to my second topic-the impact of population
growth at current and projected levels.
Population growth is already impacting on our schools.
There is a rush to build more primary school places. Maternity units are
affected; in some places mothers have to be turned away. Housing is also
affected-nearly 40 per cent. of new households will be the result of
future immigration. Housing is an increasingly serious problem. There is
already a grave shortage, particularly of social housing, the waiting list
for which in England has risen by 70 per cent. in seven years. We are told
that
2 Feb 2010 : Column 4WH there are still plenty of green fields in England and that only 11 per cent. of our land is built over. It may be so, but it certainly does not feel like that.
I want to offer one more, very important, quote:
"Great parts of this country are already over populated,
the transport system is a nightmare and some social services are barely
able to function. Yet the government remains in denial about the massive
social implications of unchecked immigration, a piece of social
engineering that might yet stand as the only lasting legacy of new
Labour".
That comes from a lifelong supporter of the Labour party, a
former editor of the Daily Mirror, Mike Molloy, writing in a
newspaper last week. It is not a matter only of impressions. England as a
whole is now, with Holland, the most crowded country in Europe. We are
nearly twice as crowded as Germany and four times as crowded as France.
One need only go to those two countries to see that that is the truth. The
public understand very well that we simply cannot go on like this without
a serious deterioration in our quality of life.
What more should we do? First, there should be an
overarching political commitment to take the measures necessary to get
immigration down. No single measure will achieve that. There is no silver
bullet. Secondly, there should be a serious effort to tighten the chaotic
state of student visas. As I mentioned, some bogus colleges have been
eliminated from the list of potential sponsors, and those that can still
sponsor students now have some new responsibilities. That is welcome, but
the universities and colleges that issue the key document-the confirmation
of acceptance for studies-are the very same bodies that have a clear
financial interest in the admission of foreign students to the UK. We must
return to a situation in which there is also a check by a UK-based
immigration officer before a visa is issued, especially in countries of
immigration concern. Those highly trained and exceptional immigration
officers have the local knowledge that will help them to detect bogus
applications-something that an admissions tutor based in Britain is
clearly incapable of doing. On work permits, we would like the bar to be
raised in the points-based system, at least for as long as we have 2.5
million of our own people unemployed in Britain.
That leaves marriage as the third major category. Clearly
there can be no question of preventing genuine marriage by a British
citizen to a foreign national, provided that both are of a suitable age-at
present 21. However, the days when we could allow marriages to be arranged
overseas for the purpose of immigration must now come to an end. It is not
helpful to the individuals concerned, who can often come under the most
severe and unhappy family pressure. Nor is it any help in integrating
those communities into our society. It is time to move on-a view shared by
many in the communities concerned.
The public are right to be deeply concerned. In a recent
survey, 85 per cent. were worried about the UK population reaching 70
million, and 50 per cent. were very worried. They want a Government, of
whatever party, who face up to the reality of the numbers and take firm
and effective action in response. That is also what the all-party group
wants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Soames and Frank Field Co-Chair the Cross
Party Group on Balanced Migration
www.balancedmigration.com
Speech by The Rt Hon Frank Field MP.
Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): I want to begin
by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). At a
time when most people did not want to discuss immigration, he secured
immigration debates in this Chamber and in the House. It was largely
through his pioneering bravery that I, too, became more vocal in the
debate. I am looking for slightly different answers to the questions that
he poses. I hope that by the end of the debate, when we have heard all
three party spokesmen, we shall have a clear idea of the programmes that
will be offered to the electorate.
I also hope that, as this debate will probably be our last
on the subject before the general election, all three parties might want
to apologise to the country for what they have allowed to happen to it. I
am not saying that the policy was deliberate at first, or that it was
engineered, as suggested in the quotation used a moment ago by my friend,
the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex. However, what appeared to be an open-door
immigration policy has wrought havoc in many sections of our community,
particularly among the poorest. As we are now in an age when we feel that
we should apologise for what, in our current judgment, we see to have been
appalling actions, even though we could not have had any effect on them,
the electorate might welcome some more up-to-date apologies for what has
happened to their country.
In some areas, Britain has changed. I do not blame the
immigrants-the new arrivals, who came here to make a better life. I blame
us, the political class, not only for not seeing that as an issue, or
perceiving what the long-term consequences would be, although that was bad
enough. I also blame us for a much more deep-seated failure to have any
coherent sense of what the nation stands for. Because we did not have any
clear idea of what Britain stood for, except for some vague and wonderful
concept of our having always been tolerant-and I must say that my own
experience does not lead me to believe that that was more than skin
deep-we failed to take on from the Edwardian age what we now think it
means to be a citizen of this country. None of us can blame the new
arrivals, who were often invited by us to come here without knowing what
we stood for and with no benchmarks to judge their standards by, for
simply continuing to protect and promote the culture that they brought
with them. The fault is not theirs, but it is certainly ours.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The right hon.
Gentleman is right to mention tolerance, which is a great tradition of our
country. Pressures on jobs, housing and public services have been
mentioned, but a more marginal consequence of immigration is that our
traditions and culture are under threat-by the increasing use of sharia
councils, for instance. That does nothing to promote equality. We should
not be tolerant of that.
Mr. Frank Field: No, but think of what happens in
Afghanistan. If the voters there feel that the "elected" Government cannot
deliver common or garden justice, they will seek other forms to give order
and principle to their lives. It is easy to get headlines by saying that
we should not have sharia law here, but we ought seriously to consider why
some people look to other ways of
2 Feb 2010 : Column 6WH imposing discipline, order and fairness, and what lessons that might have for our widespread and more accepted judicial system.
First, as I said, I look for an apology from all three
political parties. At worst, they participated in the silence while this
great change was happening to our country. Secondly, they should
apologise-[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not laugh.
Immigration on this scale has forced down wages.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): I was not laughing,
but snorting with derision. Immigration was fine when the right hon.
Gentleman and the Government whom he supported were elected in 1997. There
was nothing wrong then. The problem has arisen in the past 10 years. I
know that an election is coming up, and that the right hon. Gentleman, for
largely historical reasons, will be running as a Labour candidate and will
therefore be supporting the Government, but for him to ask other parties
to apologise for the mess created by his own party is a bit rich.
Mr. Frank Field: The thought that I will be running
"historically" as a Labour candidate has driven the Whip from the Chamber.
Perhaps he is going to write it down on tablets of stone.
We have to make a distinction between the machinery left by
the previous Government and the actual numbers. Indeed, one very good
thing happened recently when the Conservative leader said that he wished
to reduce net immigration to the levels of the early 1990s, not the late
1990s. Although I deplore what has happened since Labour came to power, I
am not blind to the fact that the issue did not start with us; there was
an acceleration in net migration under the previous Conservative
Government.
Several hon. Members rose-
Mr. Frank Field: I shall give way first to the hon.
Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and then to my hon. Friend the Member
for Bassetlaw (John Mann).
Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman is being
generous in giving way again. Will he acknowledge the simple fact that
immigration has increased fourfold under the Government whom he supports?
Many of his complaints about the pressure that immigration puts on public
services, some of which I share-he and I do not disagree much about the
solution-have come about in the past decade. To blame all three political
parties is a bit rich.
Mr. Frank Field: I shall continue to do so; the
electorate will decide. I agree that there is a difference in policy
between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. The Liberals are
quite open about having an open-borders policy, inviting in anyone who
wants to come here. That has not been Conservative party policy, and it is
certainly not our policy.
2 Feb 2010 : Column 6WH—continued
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): Does my right hon.
Friend agree that there is a fundamental weakness in the assumption that
led to the Conservative party's signing the Maastricht treaty and that
underpinned the logic of the Treasury and the Bank of England-I do
2 Feb 2010 : Column 7WH not mean politically, but as institutions? I am thinking of the assumption that the economy would benefit from cheaper and younger labour. Flawed economic logic has underpinned policies from both parties across the generations.
Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful for all
interventions, but particularly for the one just made by my hon. Friend.
By allowing large numbers of unskilled labourers into this country, our
immigration policy has fed the habit and weakness of British industry,
which as a result has not taken labour upmarket and has not put a premium
on high skills. All those crucial decisions for our economic future were
put off because there was an endless supply of people; that not only meant
low wages, but helped to beat down wages. It is those at the very bottom
of the pile, who have had to bear the brunt of this wonderful, open
competition, whom I wish to champion in this debate-to some extent, at
least; it is not only they who concern me.
The third failure caused by our not getting to grips
earlier with the number of people wishing to come here to work is that
welfare reform was made even more difficult to accomplish; indeed, one
might say that it was made impossible. Since 1997, more than 3 million
additional jobs have been created, but the number of workless people of
working age has fallen only from 5.6 million to 5.2 million. Given how the
economy was expanding, it could not have been a better time to have pushed
through welfare reform with a process of tough love, but we failed to
grasp the opportunity; it was impossible to grasp it because of our
immigration policy.
I hope that we shall hear what the political parties wish
to put in their manifestos. The all-party group on balanced migration
believes that it is necessary for all three parties to subscribe to two
main proposals if we are to reassure the electorate that, late in the day,
we are getting a grip on the number of people coming here. The first is
that we need not only a cap, and some idea of the numbers that we think
can come here to work and be assimilated, but a points system-the
Government have decided to use one-as a way of rationing who should fill
those places.
The second proposal is to break the link between coming
here to work and almost automatically becoming citizens. In other words,
we should welcome the proposals now being considered by the Government
that people can come here perhaps for four years and then return home.
That would be an advantage to them and certainly to the British economy.
The idea that working here should automatically lead to citizenship has
led to the long-term growth in population, as have the changes in the
birth rate mentioned by my friend, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.
My last point is not to do with the all-party group on
balanced migration. I wish to speak about something that I believe will
come to dominate the next Parliament-the free movement of labour in
Europe. We are now seeing the limits of and the strains caused by the free
movement of capital. Perhaps before the general election, we will see the
inner cabinet of Europe having to preserve their currency by taking over
the main negotiations on Greek debt.
2 Feb 2010 : Column 8WH
We are in an age that was never envisaged by those who told
us that it would be good for us to sign up to the single currency. I pose
a question. We hear all sorts of soft talk about countries such as Turkey
gaining admittance to the European Community. Having free movement of
labour among a group of western European countries that, generally
speaking, have the same standard of living is a totally different
proposition from having free movement of labour in a European Union where
the standards of living are hugely different-so diverse that it is
difficult to put the matter in arithmetical terms.
Although we would not expect the matter to feature in the
coming election campaign, those who are lucky enough to be returned by the
voters will need seriously to consider it. We should not do so under the
guise of trying to attack the EU. Those who are sceptical-and those who
are friends of the EU-need to look at whether a policy of endlessly
increasing the borders of Europe will allow the free movement of labour
that was envisaged in those early days, when there were only six core
countries with similar standards of living.
Let me end by reading out the results of an immigration
survey that is to be released tomorrow by the Townswomen's Guild, which
has become concerned about the issue. Members will know that Townswomen's
Guilds were established to reach those parts of the country that the
Women's Institute did not touch, although now both organisations have much
more of a joint membership.
The Townswomen's Guild asked its members what the levels of
immigration should be in this country. I have to confess to the hon.
Member for Mid-Sussex that the results do not totally support the position
of the all-party group on balanced migration, which is anxious to get
policy commitments from all three parties that will prevent the population
rising above 70 million. Only 17 per cent. of a record number of members
of the Townswomen's Guild who responded to the questionnaire thought that
that was a satisfactory position. Nearly 80 per cent. sought a much
greater reduction. More than 50 per cent. wanted no net migration and
nearly 29 per cent. wanted no immigration whatever.
The membership of the Townswomen's Guilds are part of the
backbone of England. If we, as politicians who have represented such
groups during this Parliament and hope to do so in the next Parliament, do
not take seriously such a message, the game is well and truly up for
democracy.
The full debate may be accessed via the following link:-
House of Commons Hansard
Volume 505
No 35
Col 1WH
|
|||
|
|
||||
