IMMIGRATION

Below is the copy of an recent article in the Daily Mail written by the Frank Field MP:

‘Newcomers to Britain are arriving at such a rate that, over a five-year Parliament, the population increase will be equal to 47 new Parliamentary constituencies.

On the other hand, the rate at which a number of our fellow citizens are deciding to go in the opposite direction and make their lives beyond our shores is equivalent to 26 constituencies.

The result is a turnover in our population of almost a million each year.

This statistic is based on official figures for 2004 - the latest available. But the recent trend shows a sharp escalation.

The truth is that this is simply not sustainable.

Over the centuries, Britain has generally been a net exporter of people. There was only one year during the period from 1964 to 1982 when there was a net migration into this country.

In 1983, there was a net migration of 17,600 - and the figures have swollen to almost a quarter of a million by 2004.

The Government’s estimate of future movements of population is so wide of the mark it’s pitiful.

While both France and Germany placed curbs on the number of citizens from the new EU accession countries crossing their borders, Britain did not.

Our Government was confident that the influx of people form Eastern Europe would total no more than 13,000 in the first 12 months. But today, 18 months later, this guesstimate has been shown to be out by almost a factor of 30.

In fact the numbers coming here are recorded as 329,000. Of course, none of these figures include illegal immigrants.

Movements of population on this scale are having a massive social impact which will, if not addressed, cause sweeping political changes and which, perhaps, will determine the future of the Labour Party.

For it is in the Labour heartlands that the first and full impact of mass migration on this scale is being felt.

The BNP, not surprisingly, did best in this year’s local elections in those areas where recent immigration was highest. It is England that is being most affected.

The Government projections for future population growth, which is now driven by immigration, show a net migration policy in England producing the equivalent of a new city the size of Birmingham every five years.

Given that new arrivals concentrate in the poorest areas - although the geographical spread of such areas is on the increase - the sheer numbers arriving in such a short space of time transform the communities into which they arrive.

Within the space of five years, an English working-class community with first-generation, settled immigrants and their children, is transformed out of all recognition. Neighbourhoods in which people have spent the whole of their days are literally being changed before their eyes.

There are, of course, gains from immigration and these must feature in any cool, rational public debate. But we need to be precise over what those gains are.

Studies in the US, Canada and Holland have found that, understandably, most of the benefit accrues to the immigrants themselves. The benefit to the host community is in the order of 0.1 per cent of GDP per head per year.

The Government’s claim that net immigration adds 0.4 per cent to growth takes no account of the 0.26 per cent increase in population. So the benefit per head falls to 0.14 per cent, or a £2-a-week boost to the average family.

But immigration on the present scale also affects wage levels. Again, some people see a benefit.

The Government correctly stresses that Britain is experiencing probably the longest economic boom in its history. Part of the reason for that is the Chancellor’s radical decision to entrust an Independent Monetary Policy Committee with an inflation target.

A second reason is that with an increasing labour force, and people coming here very anxious to work, the traditional rise in wages which has destroyed most previous booms in the post-war period has not operated.

But there is another way of looking at these figures. Immigration on this scale is pushing down wage rates.

My constituency of Birkenhead has not yet been affected by the scale of the current increase in immigration, although there is a settled immigrant community in the town.

Yet, last Friday, I had the first example of a middle-aged man who had worked every year since leaving school but was now finding it impossible to get a plastering job. His wage rates were being undercut ruthlessly by newcomers in the area.

Here is one of the crunch questions that Middle England must face. Up until now, it has been the clear winner from the Government’s immigration policy. It has benefited for our ubiquitous Polish plumbers and those other skilled workers, many of whom operate in the cash economy.

But Middle England is “sleepwalking” towards segregation - to use the words of Trevor Philips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

An Australian study has found that some British cities now rank with the top 50 segregated American cities, such as New York, Miami and Los Angeles.

The high concentration of 70 per cent of the new arrivals coming to London and the South East renders integration more difficult.

“White flight” is occurring, with an estimated 100,000 people leaving London each year. In six London boroughs, births to foreign-born mothers account for 60 per cent of all babies born.

If we continue our sleepwalking approach, I believe the political impact will be seismic.

Without immigration, the BNP would hardly exist, but it exploits the situation in the nastiest of ways. Mainstream Britain has to be thankful that the BNP has yet to throw up a leader of even modest political skills.

If it ever did, and the three major parties remained unwilling to participate in a debate, we could be facing quite shocking results.

During the last General Election campaign, Tony Blair and the then Tory leader, Michael Howard, promised a cool, calm and sustained debate on immigration. But that debate has yet to begin.

People have a right to expect the major parties to be mature enough to discuss those issues which most affect us. Excluding immigration from the debate makes it even easier for the riff-raff on the Far-Right to exploit voters’ natural concerns.

The Prime Minister needs to begin the debate. First, does England want to see immigration as the driving force for a rapidly rising population over the next 30 years?

If the answer is “no”, we should begin discussing the possible implementation of David Blunkett’s points system, regulating the numbers of immigrants at any one time coming to Britain.

This debate is about the kind of Britain we want to see created. We are not Little Englanders. We have a great history of engagement with vast parts of the globe.

But Britain is sleepwalking into becoming a global labour station. If the Prime Minister believes this scenario is right, he has a duty to test it openly with the electorate.

The issue of whether this country goes to war is seen as too important to be left to that high command. Similarly, the future of a great country like Britain cannot be decided by a very small group of politicians who are not prepared to discuss and defend their decisions in public.’