UK MPs debated immigration in the House of Commons yesterday. A backbench debate
was triggered by a petition from the Migrationwatch UK pressure group, which
campaigns for a reduction in the level of immigration into the UK. The debate was followed by a
vote on the motion which called on the government to take all necessary steps to
keep the population as close to current levels as possible, and in any event to
keep it well below 70m. The motion was passed by the House. However, speaking
earlier in the day in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, Home Secretary
Theresa May said that she did not think it was the role of the government to 'be
setting a figure for the overall population'.
The immigration debate was
sponsored by Nicholas Soames, a Conservative grandee and grandson of Sir Winston
Churchill and Labour's Frank Field, the MP for Birkenhead. The two are co-chairs
of the Cross-Party Group on Balanced Migration and jointly proposed the motion.
The Cross-Party Group has 33 MPs as members as well as 17 members of the House
of Lords. Its website states that its aim is to see the UK's population
stabilized at around 65m which is very close to the current level.
The
motion called on the government to 'take all necessary steps to reduce
immigration to stabilize the UK's population as close to present levels as
possible. The debate was listed for hearing after Migrationwatch UK launched a
petition on the government's e-Petitions website last October. The petition was
worded 'Over the past ten years the government has permitted mass immigration
despite very strong public opposition reflected in numerous opinion polls….So we
call on the government to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a
level that will stabilise our population as close to the present level as
possible and, certainly, well below 70 million.' If a petition on the
e-Petitions site achieves 100,000 signatures within a year, it will be
considered for a Commons debate by the House of Commons' Backbench Business
Committee. The Migrationwatch UK petition reached 100,000 signatures in under a
week and so was listed for a Commons debate.
Mr Soames opened the debate.
He said that the UK was currently undergoing the greatest wave of immigration
for 1,000 years and that 3.5m migrants had settled in the UK during the last
Labour regime (1997-2010). This had changed the country, he said, and there was
growing public concern. If trends continued, the population of the country would
reach 70m in 15 years. That would be a rise of 7.7m from the current level. 5m
of this growth would comprise immigrants. This, would require massive government
outlay. It would require building houses, roads, schools and other
infrastructure which would be equivalent to building again the eight biggest
cities in the UK outside London.
He said that immigrants enriched the UK
in many ways and that the problem was merely one of scale. He said that the
immigration system was 'shambolic' and immensely bureaucratic; singling out
student immigration for special attention, he said that there were over 800
pages of guidance for universities for accepting foreign students and enormously
long and complex forms for prospective immigrants to complete.
He said
that the 'points-based system for awarding visas should be abolished and that
immigration decisions should, instead, rely on 'the common sense of experienced
immigration officers'. He said that the attempt to create a list of objective
criteria was futile. 'Common sense has gone out of the window, bureaucracy has
taken over,' he said.
Mr Field, too, expressed concerns about the number
of students coming to the UK. He also said that no one knows how many students
leave the UK having finished
their studies. It is known that 21% remain legally, perhaps having taken up a
job and obtained a tier 2 skilled worker visa, but no one knew where the other
79% were.
The debate was thinly attended. Most speakers spoke in favour
of the motion; Andrew Turner, the Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, said
that the Labour Party had deliberately allowed immigration to create an
electoral advantage for the left. He said in 1953, Britain had accepted 3,000
immigrants. It now took 200,000 a year which created 'a new Birmingham every
five years'.
Roger Godsiff, Labour MP for Hither Green, Birmingham, said
that he was a keen advocate of multiculturalism but feared that mass immigration
put it under threat. He said that the wages of the low paid were kept lower by
immigration while the bosses paid themselves bigger bonuses. He said that many
of his constituents came to the UK as immigrants and they feared immigration as
much as anyone. He said that untrammelled immigration could put race relations
at risk.
Several MPs said that this was an important debate. They said
that the failure of the main political parties to address immigration had driven
people who were not racists into the hands of racist parties. They urged the
government to act.
Paul Blomfield, Labour MP for Sheffield Central said
that international students brought a great deal of income to the country. There
were many such students in Sheffield and 2,000 jobs there depended on export
education. He said that foreign students brought £7.9bn a year into the UK
economy and, because of the demand for education from the developing economies,
this figure could double. And yet, the UK was losing market share because of the
Home Office's policies. He said that the Home Office's own figures suggested its
plans would cost £2.9bn a year.
Several speakers called on the new
Immigration Minister, Mark Harper, who attended the debate, to show compassion
to the 2,600 students at London Metropolitan University who are facing
deportation from the country. Last week, the United Kingdom Border Agency
revoked the university's licence to sponsor international students after the
university's systems for checking that they were genuine were found to be
inadequate. Frank Field said that to deport these students would be to 'punish
the innocent'.
Speaking at the end of the debate, Mr Harper said that he
would not overrule the UKBA's decision to prevent the students from finishing
their courses at LMU but said that a government taskforce would help genuine
students find alternative courses. He said that the Home Office policies would
continue unchanged.
The motion was carried without a division with a
clear majority in favour of the motion. However, parliament has no power to
compel the government to legislate. As the Home Secretary had already signalled
her opposition to setting targets for the UK's population, it was clear that the
vote will not affect government policy.
Global Visa Support offers a variety
of programmes in United Kingdom. Please visit our UK page for more information: http://www.globalvisasupport.com/uk.html
No comments:
Post a Comment