Speeches and Statements

'Business isn't the only voice' - key immigration reforms over the last 12 months

Speech by Liam Byrne, the Minister of State for Immigration, Citizenship & Nationality, to KPMG London on 4 June 2007.

Ian, can I first thank you for bringing us together this evening. They don’t let me out of the HO much so it’s nice to have the chance to see a few old friends.

The great virtue of my job is that you never grow short of advice. I know that news may disappoint some of you who sell advice for a living, for extremely reasonable rates.

But I know the only greater frustration is a client who never listens to a word you say, so I thought what I’d do tonight is set out the key reforms of the last 12 months which John Reid and I have made with the benefit of the counsel we’ve had – much of it for free.

If I listened to some I would not be strengthening a border around Britain – I’d be building a barricade. Lots suggest I do this. They send me emails. Indeed, they offer not only to build this structure, but to staff it. For free.

But I don’t believe there’s anyone here tonight who believes that would save Britain – it would strangle Britain.

What’s the evidence?

• Migrant labour is worth £125 billion a year
• Foreign students bring in £5 billion a year
• Professor David Blanchflower of the MPC says immigration could have reduced unemployment rates over the last few years
• The CBI says migrants help to fill job vacancies where Britons are unable or unwilling to do so.
• Your studies here at KPMG have found half of London's employers are relying on migrant workers to plug the skills gap
• Two-thirds of the people who replied to your survey (67%) said they expect skills shortages to be the biggest obstacle to business growth over the next six months, up from 53 per cent a year ago. 

So, why is it that 78% of the public want the (next) government to make curbing new immigration one of its main objectives?

Why does the public now draw no distinction between legal and illegal immigration?

Why is it equally concerned by both?

Has the British public misjudged the situation?

I don’t think so.

Globalisation is bringing global movement of people and the public has noticed.

The global population of migrants has doubled since the 1960s. But since 1990, the majority began coming to the West.

Now, Western countries are conflicted, trying to balance the concerns of communities and the calls of commerce.

• In the last US presidential election 30% of voters said immigration was extremely important in deciding their vote.
• In Austria, Denmark and Holland governments have lost office in elections where immigration was an issue that mattered to people. In France immigration was central to the outcome of the election.

But, to read the press you’d be forgiven for thinking everyone of those people was coming to the UK. Well, they’re not.

• Between 1990 and 2005 the USA gained 15 million migrants, Spain and Germany each gained 4 million, while the UK just 1.6 million.
• Between 1995 and 2004 Spain saw a 400% increase in its foreign population. Italy’s net immigration rate was nearly 3 times higher than that of the UK.
• The truth is net migration into the UK is approximately the same as the OECD average.

So why the question of confidence? Because at a time of great change the public felt three shocks to the system.

• First the huge spike in asylum claims we saw at the turn of the century
• Then, the unpredicted influx of newcomers from the new Eastern Europe
• And last year, the crisis of foreign prisoners released without a review of whether they should be deported. Soon we will publish our review of what happened. It is important reading.

Now, against this backdrop. We could slam shut the door. Or we could simply give up trying to control immigration and say it’s all too difficult, which is what an amnesty might mean.

I think we need a different course. I think we have to rebalance the system and get the basics right.

Some have told us to set a limit on immigration. But my great fear is that this is vanity politics. It may look good but it means little. [48%] of net migration is with the EU, where no-one proposes a limit – the whole House approved the Accession Treaties in April 2003 / April 2005.

No-one proposes we should set a cap on refugee numbers. And without the biometric technology David Davis says he’ll decommission, we’d be counting blind. So, sounds good. Means little.

Instead John Reid and I have sought three big changes.

1. The first is to bring policy-making out blinking into the sunlight.

If we’re to rebuild trust in the immigration system, we have to be open and candid about the choices we have. In the 21st century we can’t take big decisions in secret.

So last Wednesday I published the advert for a new chair of the Migration Advisory Committee. The successful candidate will chair a committee of 4 labour market economists advising us where we need, and where we don’t need migration. It’s a good job.

But this debate is in desperate need of better evidence. Today it’s too hard to have a proper argument because everyone disagrees about what the facts are.

So today I’m announcing who will join our Migration Impact Forum. Local government, housing, education, the voluntary sector, the police, the magistracy, the NHS, the CBI and the TUC.

In other words, when we make migration decisions, business will not be the only voice we listen to – because others have a claim to stake.

I hope these changes will change the terms of debate in public – I hope it will give people the confidence to express their views in a balanced and reasonable way.

2. The second change John and I have made is to put protecting the public the number one priority for the immigration system at home, and abroad.

Our offshore border is starting to deliver. Biometric visa posts have matched nearly 4,000 prints taken abroad to people we already have an interest in here at home.

Our offshore travel checks have delivered nearly 1,000 arrests of wanted and missing people, plus led to detection or seizures of drugs and banned materials, immigration offenders and fake documents.

Here in the UK this policy means sending home those who threaten us first. Over the last 12 months we have almost doubled the rate at which we send home FNPs.

That work means new partnerships with agencies who share our agenda

At the end of December, we will have a new joint venture in place with the police.

Our first immigration crime partnerships with local communities will be in place by the end of the year.

New regional partnerships will link the immigration service with tax authorities, benefits agencies, DfES, local authorities, police and the private sector to block the benefits of Britain if you’re here illegally and to tackle exploitation.

New partnerships with SOCA, the UK Human Trafficking Centre, courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, Prison and Probation Services and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency will help us tackle serious harm.

And this month we will publish our first strategy for global alliances to manage migration. It is a strategy shared by the Home Office and the FCO, but for the first time we say we will make our migration objectives a key element in our bilateral and international relationships.

These changes are important but I want to argue that a third step is needed too.

3. If the UK Borders Bill passes the House we will next year introduce compulsory ID Cards for foreign nationals if they stay in the UK for more than 6 months, to help ensure there is no fraudulent access to work or benefits.

Over the last five years our citizenship policy has taken steps forward, but now we need to refocus. We need a new debate on where we go next.

I believe we should clarify the contract between our country and newcomers.

On the one hand we need to do more to help newcomers understand our values and the British way of life when they decide to stay. But for those who decide to make the UK their future, we need to make it clearer that citizenship isn’t simply handed out, but something which is earned.

Crucially we need to demonstrate that fairness is at the heart of the deal.

Conclusion

So this is a time of great change for the Border and Immigration Agency. I’m proud of the progress we have made in 12 months.

It is reform that has been led by the frontline, advised by our international partners. Our goal was to rebuild confidence and rebalance the system.

We still have a long road to travel – but in the last 5 months we’ve improved net dissatisfaction with the immigration service by 16 points.

In 12 months time, the picture will look different again.

A new agency at arms length from the Home Office; a strong more powerful inspectorate; new regions to help us compare performance and work closer with local communities. Some of the best people from across Government are applying to work with us.

I think these changes will help us strike the balance between communities and commerce. But my prediction is the debate will be with us for some years to come. I hope that you won’t be shy in coming forward with your point of view.