Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): I commend the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on his speech and hope that the House listened with great care to what he said in this important debate.

For centuries the British isles have been a destination for immigrants and a source of emigrants. The flow of people has contributed to one of the strongest societies and one of the most dynamic economies in the world. Likewise, Britons have emigrated across the world, taking with them their skills and our customs, traditions and, of course, language. The benefits of migration are therefore not in any doubt. Our country, just like any other, would be much the poorer but for the contribution that immigrants have made here and that Britons have made overseas.

However, I hope that the House paid attention to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made. Many of us believe, as do many of our constituents-their voices have been woefully under-heard in the Chamber-that we should reflect the deep anxiety in the country and that we must ease the pressure that the sheer scale of current immigration is placing on our public services, environment and, indeed, the cohesion of our society.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, he and I arrived at many of the same conclusions-he rather ahead of me-and decided to form the cross-party group on balanced migration. The purpose was to try to have a rational debate based on the facts-an extremely unusual thing in this debate-to put forward some positive and workable proposals, and to listen to the ideas that others wish to put forward in a rather more forgiving atmosphere. To that end we sent every hon. Member a copy of our booklet, which sets out a new approach to controlling immigration and which was headed by the right hon. Gentleman “Balanced migration”. He and I are very grateful to the Home Secretary for receiving us and for giving us an encouraging and courteous reception. We now have high hopes from the words that have been expressed by the immigration Minister.

I want to deal briefly with two misconceptions. Some people say that recession means that immigration is no longer an issue. Others point to departing Poles and draw the same conclusion. We have published research this week that clearly shows that, during the three recessions of the past 38 years-1975-76, 1981-82 and 1993-immigration did indeed decline for a year or two during each one. It then picked up afterwards. Indeed, it has picked up dramatically since 1997, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said. This is clearly no answer to the immigration problem, unless of course we are to live in an endless recession.

On the second point, it is true that some Poles and other European Union migrants are going home, but others are still coming. The probability is that arrivals and departures will come into balance in a few years time. The conclusion to draw, therefore, is that the bulk of continuing immigration will inevitably be from outside the EU and could therefore be controlled if the Government had the political will to do so. Already, in 2006, 68 per cent. of foreign immigration was from countries outside the European Union.

All of us who are concerned about this matter were delighted that the new Minister suggested at the weekend that the Government were now thinking afresh on the principles that underpin immigration policy. That is greatly to be welcomed. Let me remind the House precisely what he said:

“This Government isn’t going to allow the population to go up to 70 million. There has to be a balance between the number of people coming in and the number of people leaving.”

That implies two things. First, it implies that there will be a limit on immigration. Secondly, it suggests that the Government appear to accept the thrust of our argument that, to stabilise our population, immigration should be brought into line with emigration.

This change is certainly necessary. According to the Government’s own statistics, England’s population will increase by nearly 10 million by 2031, and 70 per cent. of that increase-that is, 7 million people, or seven times the population of Birmingham-will be a result of immigration. They will all need to be housed. The Government’s own household projections show that immigration will account for 33 per cent. of new households. When the figures are updated with the 2006 population estimates, the percentage will be closer to 39 per cent. Clearly, further action is essential.

Mr. Davidson: If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that there has to be action on the 68 per cent. of immigration that comes from outwith the EU, does he have a policy for dealing with the 32 per cent.-on his figures-that comes from within the EU? Surely that is the elephant in the room. We cannot control the external migration if we are not prepared to control the internal migration.

Mr. Soames: That is certainly the elephant in the hon. Gentleman’s room. The answer is that we are obliged by treaty obligation to allow those people to come here and to move freely through the European Union, just as we can. The question is whether the Government have the will to control the other part of the equation, and whether they choose to exert it.

I give the Government credit for moving towards a major reform of the immigration system; credit where credit is due. But the points-based system lacks one essential and critical aspect: a limit on the number of people allowed to settle here. The reality is that a points system with no limit on the numbers able to come and settle here is largely pointless. This brings me to a key point of the cross-party group’s proposal, which was elegantly espoused by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. It is that we should split economic migration from settlement. We must balance the needs of the economy with those of society, while honouring our EU and other commitments.

Chris Huhne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: I will not give way.

Hence our proposal arises to permit skilled workers from outside the EU to come to Britain, provided that both the vacancy and their qualifications are genuine, but on the strict understanding that it is for a maximum of four years. The number allowed to settle here would thus be confined to a small number selected by a further points system.

The longer-term policy aim would be to bring immigration into line with emigration-hence the term “balanced migration”. The Minister said in his BBC interview on Sunday that he would ensure that breaking the limit between economic migrants and settlement would be part of Government policy. That, too, is extremely welcome. However, like many hon. Members and members of the public, we have all come to treat the Government’s words with caution and, in light of today, they clearly need to carry a health warning.

Let me end, if I may, by asking the Minister three very simple questions, which I would like him to answer at the end of the debate. First, given that he does not want the population of the UK to rise to 70 million, he must now want to limit immigration to the UK. Will he confirm to House tonight that there will be such a limit on the number of people allowed to settle here? Yes or no? Secondly, how will that limit work in practice? Thirdly, will he confirm that the Government will break the link between non-EU citizens being given the right work here and the almost automatic right that they have to settle here? The truth is this-that if our population is to be stabilised, which it absolutely must be, immigration has to be substantially reduced. What the House needs to know is the scale of the Government’s effort, commitment and will to bringing down the scale of current immigration.

-ends-

Opposition Day Debate on Immigration Controls

21st October 2008

Hansard volume 481 - No 149

Columns 190 - 192

Full debate can be viewed here