WHAT BRITAIN needs is a set of immigration and asylum rules in the interests of Britain: strict controls that work. And what we should have is a sensible, grown-up debate about the problems of achieving such rules, not ill-thought-out policies which will make the problems worse.
When the Conservatives launched their proposals last week on immigration and asylum — bringing them forward to upstage the long-scheduled Government plans — it was not racism. But it was opportunism. The Tory pollsters will have told them it is a hot issue for the public, as ours tell us. They will also have told them that the public believe the politicians won’t discuss immigration and asylum for reasons of political correctness. So what they did was a classic ploy: raise the issue by saying “I’m not afraid to talk about it”. The intention being to goad your opponents into accusing you of racism, so that you can then protest: “How can it be racist to discuss an issue of importance?”
In that way you make your opponents seem politically correct and you get points for “being honest”, without anyone paying too close attention to whether your solutions have the remotest prospect of working.
In fact, of course, we never accused anyone of racism in raising the issue, though it does, for obvious reasons, need to be handled with care. But it isn’t actually “honest” to talk about it in this way, as Mr Howard knows perfectly well, being a former Home Secretary. The reason immigration and asylum policy is difficult is nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness. This Government, as did the previous one, has legislated several times on the issue — each time toughening up — and is preparing to do so again. Asylum numbers have dropped by 67 per cent from their peak. The average time to decide a case is now two months, not the twenty months then. There are UK-run border controls in France and Belgium, making a real difference. In 1996 the number of removals was equivalent to only 20 per cent of unsuccessful claims. In the first six months of 2004 that proportion was almost 50 per cent.
No, the reason this area of policy is difficult is nothing to do with an absence of political will or political correctness. It is because the challenge of immigration and asylum is immensely complex. Every wealthy country in the world has it. Wholly contrary to the propaganda, Britain is not the asylum capital of Europe, let alone the world. All countries suffered a sharp increase in applications in the late 1990s, but since then they have fallen faster in the UK than elsewhere in the EU and monthly applications are now almost back down to spring 1997 levels.
For a start — despite the Conservative attempts to conflate the two — asylum and immigration are different. The problem with asylum is not the UN Convention. There is nothing in the convention which stops us rejecting unfounded asylum claims and that’s exactly what happened with the great majority of claims last year. The problem is that, by its very nature, asylum is not claimed until the claimant arrives here. Almost 80 per cent of claims are not at our ports or airports but at Croydon or other centres “in country”.
Their claims then have to be determined. Once a claim fails we will do our best to return that person to their country of origin and since 1997 have doubled the number of asylum-seekers who are removed. But there are very real practical problems to be overcome. In particular, if the applicant has no documents (and 75 per cent don’t), Then the country they say they are from, won’t accept them back. And even when they have documents the country concerned may dispute them. Many come, claiming to be from country X, only for us to discover it is country Y. In practice, the best way to keep numbers down is to do all we can to keep those posing as refugees from arriving in the first place through tougher border controls; to process claims quickly as we are doing; and to speed-up the process of removals by making the destruction of documents a criminal offence and then securing returns agreements with the relevant countries. Meanwhile, genuine refugees we should always find room for. This nation is proud of its tradition in doing so.
The Conservative proposal is so absurd it is almost laughable to anyone who knows the issue. They pretend that we could remove all the asylum claimants to another country and process their claims there. This raises the question: where, exactly?
To that question, 18 months after they first dreamt up the policy, they still give us no answer. Believe me, if there were any such country, I would be delighted to make contact and graciously tell its leader that we had decided to relocate all Britain’s asylum-seekers on his soil, and leave him with the problem of returns. But somehow I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon. Yet their entire policy is based on such an island or country existing. Incidentally the analogy with Australia is completely bogus. Only those asylum-seekers picked up in boats on their way to Australia are processed offshore. The numbers are small and it’s hugely expensive — about £50,000 per person.
So much for asylum. Controlled migration for work or study raises a very different set of issues.
We are a modern country and economy. Seven and a half million people every year visit us, the vast bulk legitimately; 90 million pass through our airports; more than 300,000 come to study, earning £5 billion for Britain; 140,000 come to work. Many parts of our economy need such labour. Nearly one third of all work permits go to nurses. There are also some highly skilled people we positively want.
Controlled migration is beneficial to Britain. However populist it may be, shutting it down would be clearly irresponsible and very quickly deeply damaging to our economy.
Yet as with any system involving large numbers of people, there is abuse. Students apply for non-existent courses. People come to work and then refuse to go back; or then switch to claiming asylum. Some unscrupulous employers use or abuse cheap labour, brought in clandestinely.
So what we need are strict controls that work. And that’s what we have been putting in place. Compiling a register of universities and colleges that are genuine. Stopping people switching categories for false reasons. Tightening up work permits so that only people Britain needs come in.
We need as well to stop random chain migration — dependents upon dependents; to prevent or penalise sham marriages; to have the power to demand special requirements if applications from particular countries rise significantly; to get after the organised crime that trafficks in people.
All this we are doing. But I know we need to do more. It is a patient, hard slog and must be done without gumming up the works that allows tourists, business people, workers and students we need to come in and out of Britain lawfully, properly and to our advantage.
The Conservative’s arbitrary quota — the size of which they can’t say, even approximately — is not sensible. It may be too high or low and Parliament can’t possibly guess what the future will bring. What is needed are strict controls with abuses weeded out.
Today, Charles Clarke will publish our proposals. They build on work done over a long period — I have probably had as many meetings on this issue as on most others in the past few years — but they are practical and workable. They will require all migration to benefit Britain and will be tough on those who abuse the system. They also recognise that our immigration staff do a tremendous job in difficult circumstances. We need them.
But the Conservative proposal is additionally to cut by more than a half the funding of the service. This would leave our borders disastrously under-protected. And now they are backing down on their support for ID cards which in the medium and long term are a vital part of our security. The dividing line, therefore, will not be about who is the racist or anti-racist but about who has the proposals that work in the interests of Britain.
