Speeches and Statements
Search for press releasesBorder security and immigration issues
17 October 2007
Speech by Liam Byrne, Home Office minister, on border security and immigration issues, to staff at Harlow in October 2007.
Can I start by saying what an absolute privilege it is, not only to be back in Harlow, but back at burnt mill, and back with so many old friends?
I wanted to come back to the place where I learned so much, to share some of the lessons I have gone on to learn in this job.
Today, we are half way through a five year plan for the reform of migration policy launched by Tony Blair in 2005 so it seemed apposite to pause a moment, to reflect on what we have done – and what is still left to do, and I want to say a little on both this afternoon.
But I want to look back too at some of the debates that have detained us for decades on immigration policy.
It is right to celebrate progress and to congratulate our people who work around the clock, round the coast, at our sea and airports, in detention centres, in caseworking teams, in enforcement patrols: 17,000 people concerned to keep our country safe.
But unless we address the fundamentals of the public interest in the immigration debate, I believe we will get our future policy wrong.
Let me begin with the most recent developments,
- We have secured our borders as never before, stopping nearly 180,000 people boarding planes to the UK in the last 5 years – that’s around 2 jumbo jets a week.
- In the last 12 months we oversaw removal of over 16,000 illegal immigrants who tried to abuse the asylum system – that’s one every half hour;
- As a result of both measures we saw asylum applications fall to their lowest levels not just since 1997, but since 1993.
This massive progress reflects the hard work of thousands of dedicated staff within the home office, across government and beyond with whom I am proud to be associated with their work. But, I am bound to say, the hard work doesn’t end here.
The 12 months to come
In the next year, I will oversee, if I last, the biggest shake-up of the immigration system in its history. In 12 months time our immigration system will have changed out of all recognition.
- In 140 days time a points based system, shaped by the success of Australia, will begin to make sure that only people Britain needs can come here to work and study.
- When we set the points pass mark, we will listen to independent advice – the migration advisory committee on the needs of the economy; and the migration impacts forum on the capacity of society.
- Three quarters of the world’s population will need fingerprint visas: a system which gives us tougher checks abroad.
- A single border force with new powers will deliver tougher policing at our ports and airports;
- And we’ll start to count people in and out of the country, because removing exit checks was a mistake.
- ID cards for foreign nationals will start to make sure that migrants can prove who they are, and help us safeguard access to work and to benefits.
- Enforcement will be faster. Over 40% of asylum cases will be concluded within 6 months, and those who commit serious offences will be automatically deported.
- We will attack the root causes of illegal journeys, which is illegal jobs, with big new fast-track fines for employers turning a blind eye or breaking the rules. And those who sponsor migrants to come to Britain will need a licence to do so.
All of these changes will be driven forward the new Border and Immigration Agency, operating with freedom from central government with a new powerful regulator and with much stronger links to the communities it serves.
Next 30 days
In the next 30 days sweeping changes to border security will signal the change of pace.
- Abroad, we will have extended fingerprint visas to over half the world’s population;
- At home, we will prepare plans to bring together the Border and Immigration Agency, customs and UKvisas into a unified border force;
- In parliament we will pass of the UK borders bill which will give new powers for our border teams;
- In the Home Office we will sign new contracts which will presage new systems to count people in and out of Britain.
Migration today – the strategic context
But I want to argue today that this progress is simply the culmination of reform designed to deliver a system that is fit not only for purpose, but fit for the future:
Fit not just for the globalisation which has begun but which is still to come.
A system in which the UK has become, as the foreign secretary put it in his first speech, a powerful global hub for people, business and culture:
“Britain must use its strength as a global hub, financially, culturally and politically”. (Foreign Secretary, 19 July)
15 years ago, we were not a hub, but an island isolated in Europe, buffeted on the world stage, with creaking border systems cracking under the strain of events.
As the cold war wound down, civil war wound up. For the first time the casualties of conflict inside states outstripped that of conflict between them, and Britain helped to pick up the pieces.
374,000 people had claimed asylum in the UK by the end of the 1990s, a quarter from just 4 countries.
- Former Yugoslavia – which had collapsed into bitter and bloody internal ethnic fighting
- Iraq – under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein
- Somalia – a failed state with no central government and no rule of law
- Afghanistan – suppressed by the brutal dictatorship of the Taliban
Asylum applications snowballed, from less than 25,000 in 1992 to over 70,000 seven years later.
The conservative’s asylum system practically collapsed;
- By mid 1998 there was a backlog of over 50,000 asylum applications, over 30,000 immigration appeals and nearly 100,000 citizenship applications.
- Appeals could take over a year to be heard, and another 3 months for the decision to be communicated.
- Yet in 1997 only 7000 failed asylum seekers were removed.
Migration was becoming a burden, not a benefit.
Reform in the past
It was this mess that the labour government had to clear up.
The 1999 immigration and asylum act, followed by 3 further pieces of legislation transformed the system in a way that means we can today say:
- Removals of principal applications have increased by 128%.
- Last year, for the first time, we hit the tipping point target – removing more failed asylum seekers than the number of unfounded claims lodged.
- By the end of the year we will be concluding 40% of cases within 6 months
Reform in the future
But new asylum systems are only the first part of our task.
Because with the new patterns of insecurity has come new patterns of mobility. One driven by conflict. The other by the search for a better life.
- Global migration has doubled since the 1960s – and all rich countries have felt the change.
- Some in the media would have you believe they were all coming here. In fact our migration rate is around the OECD average.
These challenges require changes – new policies and new systems to govern economic migration just as new policies and new systems were required to tackle asylum abuse.
Benefits of migration
But I want to argue that as we complete this next stage of change, we need a new openness, and a new balance in making migration decisions.
The truth is that the debate about migration has changed a lot in the past 40 years. No longer is it marred by judgements motivated by the colour of someone’s skin.
But the debate about impacts on public services has remained unchanged.
Of course our country must not be closed: few would have the home secretary seal the borders; but in immigration policy public services and the public have a right to be heard – and in the future they will.
This is what I mean by a new balance. On the one hand we must list the benefits. But we have to list the impacts on public services and communities too. Then we make decisions by balancing the two.
To help us in this task we have set up the migration impacts forum, a group of frontline practitioners to provide independent advice to government on how migration affects public services and local communities.
For the first time we can now examine the frontline evidence on the impacts of migration on Britain.
For the first time we can put that evidence in the balance to inform decisions.
For the first time after frontline practical perspective will be crucial in ensuring that our migration control system acts in the national interest.
So today I am presenting to the House of Lords and the migration impacts forum detailed analysis of the fiscal economic and fiscal impacts of migration. This will show that:
- Migration added £6 billion to our national output in 2006 - £700,000 per hour, 24 hours a day.
- Further, the odds are that migration is positive for growth in GDP per capita.
- Third, migrants appear to pay more to the exchequer in tax than they consume in services: indeed in 2003-4 IPPR estimates migrants paid 10% of government revenue but ate up only 9.1% of government expenditure.
- In other words, in the long run, our country and exchequer is better off with immigration rather than without it.
Risks of migration
But alongside this I will publish the evidence that has been collected by the migration impacts forum (MIF) region by region on impacts of European migration on local communities. Yes it’s a bit patchy, but I believe it is a vital start.
It tells us that the pace of change, particularly in communities that do not have a history of absorbing migrants, has been unsettling and has created challenges for public services.
Side by side, this new approach will help us take migration decisions in a new way, starting with our policy towards Romania and Bulgaria.
The MIF will meet for the second time tomorrow, to discuss the impact of migration from Romania and Bulgaria.
Its view will go forward to cabinet, to help us decide whether to lift the restrictions that we have put in place on migrants from Romania and Bulgaria’s access to the UK job market and the benefits system. A decision we will make by the end of the year.
But this is but the first decision in which we will seek to strike this new balance.
More significant still to come, are the judgements we will make when the points system starts.
To make sure this too is as open as can be, I will publish statements of intent setting out our proposals before the system starts.
Conclusion
Immigration has always provoked debate – both positive and negative. But I am an optimist. You have to be in my job. I believe we do want an open country. I believe we are interested in this world we have done so much to shape. We like new ideas. I believe we absorb new influences well. All of us, I believe, will have our own stories to tell.
My favourite is of a man who came to Britain from a rural society before the war, who served this country in uniform, who had a son who learned the value of hard work, and public service. Who was the first in his family ever to go to University. He passed those same values in turn to his son. And that son of course, is me.
All of us will know stories that are similar.
But systems that mix people and change demand trust. And winning that trust is what I am determined to do.
