Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Jan 2010 : Column 101WHcontinued
"We are convinced that failure to take action would be seriously damaging to the future harmony of our society. Nearly a million votes by our fellow citizens for an extremist party amount to a danger sign which must not be ignored. For too long the major political parties have failed to address these issues and the intense, if largely private, concern that they generate throughout our country. If politicians want to rebuild the public's trust in the political system, they cannot continue to ignore this issue which matters so much to so many people. The time has come for action."
In responding to my hon. Friend, most unusually for me, I also want to pray in aid the Prime Minister.
In November, in a speech on immigration, the Prime Minister said:
"I have never agreed with the lazy elitism that dismisses immigration as an issue, or portrays anyone who has concerns about immigration as a racist. Immigration is not an issue for fringe parties nor a taboo subject - it is a question to be dealt with at the heart of our politics, a question about what it means to be British."
Philip Davies: I would certainly like to congratulate my hon. Friend on once again raising an issue that is hugely important to not just his and my constituents, but people right across the country. Returning to his theme of how we are an overcrowded nation already, would he like to comment on the fact that when the Government launched the ambitious house building target of 3 million by 2020-it seems that target will be missed anyway-they said by their own admission that 1 million new homes out of those 3 million will be needed for future immigration into this country? Does that alone not highlight how unsustainable the level of immigration into this country is and its effect on infrastructure and public services?
Mr. Hollobone: As usual, my hon. Friend is spot on. That is a real concern for my constituents in Kettering, because under the Government's house building plans, the number of dwellings in the borough of Kettering are due to increase by one third by 2021. I am not saying that one third of the new houses in Kettering will be occupied by immigrants, but such net immigration into our country inevitably means that a large number of the new houses built will be occupied by new arrivals. In some places that number will be very large and in others it will be very small. The latest figures from the excellent organisation, Migrationwatch UK, show that the Government's most recent household projections indicate that immigration will account for 39 per cent. of all new households in the next 20 years.
Lorely Burt: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and do not want to belittle what he is saying, because people are saying exactly the same thing to me on the doorsteps in Solihull. On his point about population density in the UK compared to other countries, other northern European countries have a greater population density than ours, such as the Netherlands and Denmark. However, we need to take account of people's perception that this is an overcrowded island and that we cannot fit anyone else, which I hear all the time on the doorsteps. That is more to do with how we perceive our population and its density. Does he agree that many of the problems relating to lack of resources are the result of the Government's misguided lack of planning for immigrant populations when they come to this country?
Mr. Hollobone: I am grateful for that helpful contribution-[Interruption.] There is quite a lot of sedentary chuntering from the Government Front Bench. The Minister is welcome to intervene at any time.
The Minister for Borders and Immigration (Mr. Phil Woolas): The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) made an important point. The Migrationwatch UK press release that the hon. Gentleman mentioned cleverly refers to England, rather than to the UK.
Mr. Hollobone: If the Minister would like to provide statistics for the UK, he is more than welcome to do so.
Mr. Woolas: For the UK, rather than England, the hon. Gentleman will find that his proposition is false.
Mr. Hollobone: The Minister has the statistics, so if he would like to furnish Members with that information, I am sure that we would all be most grateful, but all my constituents actually live in England, so that is what they are concerned about-[Interruption.]
John Cummings (in the Chair): Order. Behave yourselves and we will get through the debate.
Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Cummings, because this is a good debate on an important matter. The serious point is that the propaganda that is put out refers to the population density in England and compares that with other EU nation states. I simply point out, as did the hon. Member for Solihull, that the figures are different for the UK and provide a fairer comparison.
Mr. Hollobone: I am sure that that is right, but the fact is that, whether we are talking about the UK or England, we are still one of the most crowded countries in Europe and the world. Whether we are a couple of places below or above Denmark, Holland or Malta is of no particular consequence to my constituents or, I suggest, the Minister's. What people in this country do know is that we are already far too crowded and that we are likely to have 9 million more people in our country by 2029, unless his Government change their policy or, I hope, my Government do so.
Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is asserting that the population will be 70 million by 2030. How much of that figure is built on the extrapolation of the net migration of recent years, and how much is based on the extrapolation of birth and death rates?
Mr. Hollobone: The statistics are not mine. They come from the independent Office for National Statistics. I suggest that the Government need to take them far more seriously than they have heretofore.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): On the figure of 70 million, does the hon. Gentleman think that that should never be surpassed, and if so, what would he do if, for instance, there was a sudden spurt in births among the indigenous population that leads to the overall population rising above 70 million?
Mr. Hollobone: That is a perfectly legitimate question, which I am grateful for. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point and to that of the chuntering Minister is that 70 per cent. of that increase in population, according to the ONS, is due to-
Mr. Woolas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hollobone: I will do so when I have finished answering the previous intervention. The answer is that 70 per cent. of that increase is due to immigration, so effective measures could be taken to reduce immigration before we reach the situation, highlighted by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), in which the population passes 70 million.
Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because that is an important point, and we all agree that the far right is a problem. The figures show that 45 per cent. of the extrapolated population increase, which is based on figures for 2006-08 and includes net migration from the EU accession countries such as Poland-it is an extrapolation and not a forecast, as the ONS states-will have been the result of migration, not the 70 per cent. that he has stated. The figure he referred to is actually 65 per cent, which is what the ONS describes as the indirect implication of net migration, meaning the sons and daughters of immigrants and their sons and daughters. So the figure is 45 per cent. Furthermore, as that is an extrapolation and not a forecast, the result of the fall from 233,000 to 163,000 in net migration, because of the Polish people who did not come to this country, is that the fear of 70 million that he mentioned is not founded on the statistics.
Mr. Hollobone: If my fear is not founded on the statistics, the Minister will have no problem signing up to a manifesto pledge that the UK's population will not reach 70 million by 2029.
Mr. Woolas: When I was appointed to this job, I gave an interview to The Times in which I said that I could assure the people of this country that the population, as a result of migration policies, would not reach 70 million.
Mr. Hollobone: That is great, so the Minister can sign up to that pledge tomorrow. I think that he is playing with statistics, because as far as my constituents are concerned, whether the increase in population is due to new arrivals each year or to their children after they have arrived in the country are related issues-[Interruption.]
John Cummings (in the Chair): Order.
Mr. Hollobone: The Minister is trying to get away with saying that once immigrants are here the increase in population is not due to net immigration, and that is playing with words in a way my constituents would not appreciate. I do not know why he is looking so pleased with himself.
Mr. Woolas: That is because we have exposed the hon. Gentleman's policy. If he is saying that that is indirect net population-the result of previous immigration-there are two questions he must answer. First, what is he going to do about it? Is his policy to stop the previous immigrants to the country having children? Secondly, will he say that the net population increase is a function not just of immigration, present and past, but, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, of the birth and death rate? What will he do about it?
Mr. Hollobone: To repeat my answer to the Minister's point, net immigration from this point on needs to be cut by 75 per cent.
Mr. Woolas: In which case the hon. Gentleman must concede that his 70 per cent. figure-it is in fact 65 per cent.-is about the sons and daughters of previous migrants and their sons and daughters. What is he to do about that?
Mr. Hollobone: One cannot do anything about that. If we are to stop the UK's population rising from 61 million today to 70 million in 2029, we will have to cut net immigration every year by 75 per cent.
Philip Davies: One thing that the Minister clearly does not think is important at all is the need to deal with the illegal immigrants already in this country, whom the Government do absolutely nothing about. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that when people come to constituency surgeries with immigration cases, it often transpires, from the Home Office reply that their application for leave to remain expired in 2001 or 2002, yet they are still in the country and the Government do absolutely nothing to remove them?
Mr. Hollobone: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on and I agree with that 100 per cent. I see cases most weeks from constituents-I use the word loosely-who are clearly here illegally and complaining that their cases have not been dealt with. In some instances, I have basically told the authorities the names, addresses and mobile phone numbers of people I know to be in this country illegally, but nothing has been done.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as me about the rather cocky attitude of the Minister, given that when the Conservative party promised in its manifesto for the May 2005 election an Australian-style points system to deal with immigration from outside the EU, it was comprehensively rubbished as racist by the Minister's party? Lo and behold, within three years, the same policy has become the official policy of the Government. Is my hon. Friend surprised that this Government lack any credibility whatsoever, given that kind of disgraceful behaviour?
Mr. Hollobone: I am a little surprised by the Minister's attitude, because he is normally a nice fellow who takes part in well-reasoned debate. I can only assume that his colleagues in the Home Office have got to him and told him to start playing rough today. Nevertheless, we have a long way to go before the close of this debate, and his tone might well change.
Tom Brake: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman thinks of Boris Johnson's proposal that there should be an amnesty for irregular migrants.
Mr. Hollobone: It is a load of rubbish. Under no circumstances whatsoever should this country ever contemplate any kind of amnesty for those who are here illegally. I have some statistics about that that I shall draw on later.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con): For the avoidance of doubt, as they say, an incoming Conservative Government would not introduce an amnesty. This is a matter on which we disagree with the Mayor of London.
Mr. Hollobone:
I am reassured to hear those remarks, and as we are on that subject, I shall deal with it now. Countries such as Italy, Spain and Belgium have had amnesties. I am sure that the Minister has more statistics, but I believe that Italy, for example, has had five such programmes. In 1987-88, 119,000 illegal immigrants were regularised. The figure increased at subsequent
stages to 235,000 in 1990, 259,000 in 1996, 308,000 in 1998, and 700,000 in 2002. The point is that once one starts to regularise illegal immigrants, further illegal immigration is encouraged. That is why the Mayor of London is wrong-headed on this issue, and why no UK Government of whatever colour should ever consider an amnesty for illegal immigrants.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley about the removal of illegal immigrants, in reply to a question that I asked the Minister in May 2009-he will not be able to dispute these statistics-he told me that 66,275 people were removed or departed voluntarily from the UK in 2008, and 63,365 in 2007. The estimate of the number of illegal immigrants in this country varies, and I would be interested to hear in the Minister's closing remarks, as we have lots of time before the end of the debate, the Government's latest estimate of the number of illegal immigrants still in the UK.
I have been able to ascertain from the figures that that number is somewhere between 600,000 and 750,000. With a removal rate of 66,000 a year, it will take the best part of a decade to remove all those people from this country. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), the then Minister responsible for immigration, said on BBC 2's "Newsnight" programme in May 2006 that it would take at least 10 years to clear the backlog of illegal immigrants in this country. My constituents want that to happen, and while I very much doubt the present Government's determination to see it through, I would welcome the Minister's comments about the strength of his determination to remove from our shores those who have entered our country illegally. The situation concerns not just my constituents in Kettering, but legal migrants to this country who have gone through all the hoops, who have done their best to abide by all the rules and who are furious at those who have crossed the seas to come to our country without permission.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I can sympathise with the view that we need to get rid of illegal immigrants, but the problem is how. I do not know of any country in the world that has a successful programme, other than a programme involving voluntary acquiescence on the part of those who might wish to go home with support. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a massive undertaking?
Mr. Hollobone: It is difficult, but even this Government are making some progress on it. If they are removing 66,000 people a year, it shows that they are being at least a little bit effective in dealing with the issue. They can do it if they carry on at that rate, but they need to be determined. I hope that we will hear later that that is their intention.
There is another group of people in this country who are here illegally and in a very difficult situation. They have applied for asylum in this country and have, quite rightly, been turned down. However, they are, in effect, left in limbo. Often they are not able to go back to the countries from which they have come. Under our rules, we are not able to support them, and theirs is a dreadful existence. Any properly humanitarian approach to people crossing borders would include an effective policy to deal with them.
I do not know how many people fall into that category. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how many people have failed to secure asylum in this country-I am not disputing whether they have a right to be here-but are still here because they have nowhere else to go. We are not able to support those individuals, and we must come up with a policy to deal with their human needs.
Mr. Stewart Jackson: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the Red Cross, which does fantastic work to help people in that situation? In my constituency, we have had significant problems over the past three years with Darfuri asylum seekers and Zimbabweans. They are literally living on sofas and existing on tins of soup under the auspices of the Red Cross, which does its best. It simply is not good enough, in the fourth or fifth richest economy in the world, that people are in that situation while others are treated much more generously.
Mr. Hollobone: My hon. Friend is right. This is an example of how a tough immigration policy is fairer and kinder. If we make it clear to people that they cannot come into this country and claim asylum, if they have crossed many other safe countries before they get here, we will reduce the number of people who try to do so. I do not believe that we should offer asylum to people who have crossed other safe countries before they get to the UK.
Mr. Woolas: I agree with that point-the hon. Gentleman is right. Under the European Union rules, of course, the Dublin agreement allows us to do exactly that. If somebody has claimed in Greece, for example, we can return them to Greece. However, does he recognise the difficulty involved if people claim to be Zimbabwean, for example, but it turns out that they are actually not Zimbabwean?
Mr. Hollobone: We need a system whereby people's nationality and entry status are determined before they get here.
Mr. Woolas: I agree with that instinct. The difficulty, of course, is the Geneva convention. Does the hon. Gentleman support the idea that we should reform it so that asylum claims are allowed only in the first few hours or days after arrival in this country?
Mr. Hollobone: My understanding is that the Geneva convention does not allow people to flit from one safe country to another. Clearly, the UK does not border any unsafe countries. Unless people fly directly to this country, by definition they must have crossed a safe country.
Mr. Woolas: I agree with the intent, but how would the hon. Gentleman determine that? How would he know if somebody claiming asylum as a Zimbabwean were not Zimbabwean or whether they had arrived through an unknown route? How would he cope with that?
Mr. Hollobone: If somebody came on a cross-channel ferry from the north coast of France and claimed asylum in this country, that should not be permitted. They should be sent back across the channel.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |