Briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: PM’s Speech, ID Cards, Iraq/Troops and Middle East.
PM’s Speech
The Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) briefed journalists on the Prime Minister’s major speech on immigration at a CBI organised conference tomorrow in London. He would set out the Government’s strategy to make controlled migration work for Britain, make clear that we would be firm on abuse, but underline the economic benefits which controlled migration brought.
His speech came the day after publication of the draft ID Card Bill and in the week that Europe would enlarge to twenty five. He believed this made it particularly timely to set out the facts about migration and challenge some of the myths. For example, he would highlight a recent MORI poll which found that people here estimated the proportion of ethnic minorities in Britain as 23%, when the real figure was just 8%. But he would also reassure the public that we would tighten the system where necessary. He believed that the debate was currently taking place in ‘an information vacuum’ and that that had to change.
The Prime Minister believed that the benefits which migration brought to the UK had never been greater, but he recognised that concern over immigration had risen in the UK as the world came closer together and more people were able to travel. He would acknowledge that it was the British people’s nature to be moderate, that they could accept migration that was controlled and selective, but they would not tolerate abuse and the Government could not simply dismiss concerns as racism.
He would say, "We will neither be Fortress Britain nor Open Door Britain. Instead, we will tighten the immigration system as necessary and deal with abuses so that public support for controlled and selective migration which benefits Britain is maintained".
He would draw attention to what the Government had done to tighten the asylum system and the measures announced last week to deal with abuses in the immigration system in respect of marriages and students. He would say that this week, the ODPM would be introducing new regulations that would mean no economically inactive migrant from the European Economic Area would have access to social housing. He would point to the potential benefit of ID cards in tackling fraud and enabling people to test whether a potential worker or service user was legally in the UK and eligible, therefore, to work or access services. He would point to the ongoing programme of work at stocktakes, such as the one last week, looking at abuse of temporary employment routes into the UK, better enforcement and tightening rights of appeal.
Looking ahead to May 1, he would say that no one would be able to come to the UK simply to claim benefits and live off the state. Everyone must pay their way. To take account of the new shape of the EU, we would significantly reduce the quotas of non-EU low skilled migrants coming in to fill labour shortages in the agriculture, hospitality and catering industries. He would make clear that from May 1 people from the ten accession countries would be able to travel freely throughout the UK and take up self-employment opportunities. When Spain joined the EU there were scare stories about economic migrants. Now because of the way Spain had thrived in the EU, 300,000 UK citizens lived in Spain.
He would set out facts. We were not a particularly high migration country. We had a lower foreign-born population than Germany or France. Less that 5% of our workforce was born overseas compared to 8% in Germany and 15% in the US. Net migration in 2002 was down on the previous three years. He would say, "Those who say migration is out of control or that the UK is taking more people than other countries are simply wrong."
Finally, he would highlight the economic and social benefits. Our economic growth rate would be almost 0.5% lower over the next two years if net migration ended (Prospects for Trend Growth HMT 2002). Over the past century, migrant workers had plugged skills gaps - the Poles, Irish and Italians who had helped rebuild Britain after the war. The IT and Business professionals from the US, EU, India and elsewhere who had helped drive London’s growth as the financial centre of the world from the late 80s. A quarter of all health service professionals were now born overseas. He would say that the movement of people into and out of the UK was, and always had been, absolutely essential to our economy, and that Britain as a whole was immeasurably richer for the contribution that migrants had made to our society.
ID Cards
Asked the point of ID cards if they were not compulsory, the PMOS said that the situation over the next period would be evolutionary. The first question, which we had been addressing since last November, was how to tackle logistical problems and to do so as quickly as possible, hence the introduction of voluntary cards in 2007/8. After that, the next question would be whether Parliament would approve compulsion - on a Government recommendation on the basis of a report. This fitted into the timescale as outlined last November.
Put to him that the Government wanted the credit for being seen to crack down on migrant problems without actually taking a decision on ID cards, the PMOS said that he would disagree. The misapprehension under which the journalist was labouring was that anyone could introduce an ID card system overnight. That was impossible. This was a very complicated issue and would take time to deliver, hence the timescale as set out last November. That was why we starting off with a pilot scheme and working forwards from there.
Asked if the Prime Minister was satisfied that Ministers supported the policy, the PMOS said yes. Asked if he was confident that he would have the support of Scotland and Wales, the PMOS said that he would work with the devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales to explain the benefits of what we were doing. Asked the position regarding Irish citizens, the PMOS said that the situation remained unchanged.
Iraq/Troops
Asked for an update on Coalition discussions relating to troop deployments in Iraq, the PMOS said that the discussions were continuing. He had no intention of providing a running commentary.
Middle East
Asked for a reaction to a letter from fifty two former diplomats criticising the Prime Minister’s Middle East policy, the PMOS said that we were aware of the letter and would reply in due course. Obviously, as former members of the diplomatic corps, they were entitled to their views. However, our objectives in Iraq and on the Israeli/Palestinian question remained stability, peace and freedom. As both the Prime Minister and President Bush had made clear in their joint press conference in Washington recently, we remained committed to a two-state solution. President Bush was the first US President to support such a policy, as envisaged by the roadmap - a secure Israel and a viable Palestinian state existing side by side in peace. The Israeli offer to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank provided an opportunity to get back to the roadmap after months of limited progress. Both we and the US had also made it clear that we had not pre-judged any final status issues, which obviously had to be resolved through negotiation. On Iraq, we presumed that the fifty two former diplomats welcomed the removal of Saddam, as it was that which had opened up the possibility of democracy in the country. We were determined to achieve democracy working with the Iraqis themselves, because in the end they were the ones who would operate it.
Asked if it was the role of former diplomats to write open letters to the Prime Minister, the PMOS said that they were free citizens and it was entirely their right to do so. Equally, it was our right to state the aim of Government policy. On Iraq, that was to build on the opportunity that the removal of Saddam had provided for a more peaceful, stable and democratic country in which the Iraqi people were able to put behind them the horrors of the past. On the Middle East, our aim was to build on the real possibility of a two-state solution.
Asked for a reaction to the diplomats’ criticisms that the Coalition had not prepared sufficiently well for the aftermath of Saddam’s deposition, the PMOS said that we would disagree with the suggestion. Of course no one was pretending that we were not facing difficulties in Iraq. We were. However, given the state of Iraq before the war when two thirds of the Iraqi population had been dependent on UN food aid, such was the level to which Saddam had reduced the economy, the predictions of famine post-war had clearly not come to pass. That was not only a result of the planning before the conflict, but the action that had been taken since then. For example, Iraq had a better infrastructure today than it had had pre-war, despite all the difficulties posed by the terrorist attacks.
Asked to comment on the criticism that the Prime Minister could have been more influential in shaping the policies of President Bush, the PMOS said that as the Prime Minister himself had underlined, he rejected the idea that there was a scorecard for British objectives and US objectives. Britain’s objectives were a democracy in Iraq and a two-state solution in the Middle East. We would work with our allies, including the US, to achieve them.
delicious
digg
facebook
