[size=55:3um0pn71]Daily mail 29 July 2010
Immigration? Given Choice Between a Skilled Indian and an Unskilled Bulgarian, I Know Who I'd Prefer
As Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor, cuddly Vince Cable was the nation's best-loved politician. In government, he looks testy and grumpy, and evidently hates working with the Tories.
So it is tempting to see his outburst in India - he implied to journalists that he didn't think much of the Coalition Government's planned immigration cap - as evidence of his sourness of spirit and talent for divisiveness.
We should remember, too, that the Lib Dems' policy on immigration was decidedly flaky before they joined the Coalition.
They seemed, though it was never quite clear, to favour an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Other immigrants would be dumped in unspecified parts of the country where they probably couldn't find work.
For all that, there was some good sense in the Business Secretary's remarks to Indian journalists on Tuesday.
David Cameron leads an enormous delegation to India, and abases himself and his country by rather unnecessarily saying that he is seized by a new 'spirit of humility'. Britain hopes to do more business with this emerging economic superpower.
But at the same time, he risks offending his hosts because under the new immigration cap, whose details have not yet been worked out, Britain will allow in fewer Indian businessmen and students. No wonder Anand Sharma, the Indian commerce minister, was a little cheesed off after a recent visit to No 10, telling the Prime Minister that a cap could have an 'adverse effect' on trade relations.
We aspire to be India's new best friend, but we don't want so many Indians coming to work and study here. Not a perfect sales pitch, I would have thought, which is why I have some sympathy for Mr Cable's point of view.
Mr Cameron is playing down the notion of a rift with the Business Secretary. And he reiterated yesterday that he wants 'the net level of immigration into the UK to come down to the tens of thousands, rather than the hundreds of thousands it's been in recent years'. But how will he do it?
Don't get me wrong: immigration must be sharply curtailed. Only on Tuesday, a staggering statistic emerged from an EU official body that in 2009, Britain accounted for a third of the population growth of all 27 European Union countries.
Its population rose by 413,000 - almost the number of people who live in Liverpool. Of these, 182,000 were accounted for by immigration, and 231,000 by rising birth rates.
Much of this baby boom, by far the highest in Europe, is a consequence of immigration. One in four children born in this country last year was born to a mother who was herself born abroad.
What's more, England has taken the brunt of this irreversible social transformation, with a disproportionate number of immigrants settling in the South-East. This has happened despite England being one of the most densely populated countries in Europe - and all as a result of labour's disastrous laissez-faire migration policy.
Incidentally, the overall population growth in Britain of 413,000 for last year excludes illegal immigrants, of whom there may be three-quarters of a million resident in this country, according to a study last year by the London School of Economics. No one knows how many illegal immigrants arrived in 2009.
While the influx of all immigrants is certainly less than it was during the boom years - in 2007 official net immigration was 330,000 - it remains considerable, and the Government will struggle to meet Mr Cameron's annual target of 'tens of thousands'.
I doubt it can do so without keeping out those Indian businessmen and IT workers who concern Mr Cable. It is all very well to argue that we should be training up our own It workers out of the ranks of the unemployed. So we must - but it takes time, probably a very long time.
Companies need expertise now, which can sometimes only be supplied from abroad. There must be a tougher crackdown on illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers. And there is no case for accepting poorly skilled workers, whether they come from India or anywhere else, when unemployment in this country is heading for three million, and there are more than eight million so-called 'economically inactive' people.
Unfortunately, there is a severe inhibition on our picking and choosing people whom we want to come here which is seldom mentioned by Mr Cameron: the European Union.
EU immigration may have declined as a proportion of the whole, from as much as 60 per cent at the height of the boom to well under half, but it could rise again when economic conditions improve. the truth is that the Government is powerless to prevent this immigration.
No one can forecast what will happen when the short-term limits on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration are removed, which must happen by 2013 at the latest.
As for Turkey - which Mr Cameron said on Tuesday he yearns to see as a full member of the European Union - it could supply an almost limitless pool of immigrants. With this in mind, France and Germany are opposed to Turkish membership.
Even without turkey, the poorer countries of the EU - which may be joined by Serbia and even Ukraine - threaten a stream of immigrants which can neither be accurately predicted nor properly controlled. transitional arrangements to restrict immigration from new member states can only be short-lived. the free movement of workers is the very cornerstone of the EU.
All wise heads appear to agree that so long as Britain wishes to remain part of the European Union, it will have to accept this principle. If that is the case, we will never have control of our immigration policy.
Mr Cameron is attempting to reduce the numbers - his unspoken target is 50,000, about a third of the present rate - with one arm pinned behind his back.
This means that the British Government will almost certainly come down too harshly on businessmen and students from India, which explains Mr Cable's concern. I accept that he might allow the whole world to come and live here if he had free rein, but he has a perfectly good point.
Mr Cameron has been busy in India emphasising our historic ties with that country. But what is the worth of those treasured bonds if the interests of Bulgaria - a country with which we have few connections and for which we have little fondness - are put first?
Given a choice between an unskilled Bulgarian (or Romanian) and an Indian businessman, I know where my preferences would lie. the first has no call on our loyalties and is likely to make a limited contribution to our economy.
The second comes from a country with which we have ancient links and are trying to forge new ones. he would almost certainly speak English, and offer skills that may be in short supply here.
And yet the unskilled east European can waltz in, while the Indian businessman may be turned away. the British Government is not in charge of its immigration policy, and Indians are entitled to wonder whether, even as he professes his spirit of humility, David Cameron is talking to them with a forked tongue.
Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:26 am
