Immigration: Clegg offers his views

06/08/2014

It can't be a coincidence that the Fabian Society produces a pamphlet on immigration the day before deputy prime minister Clegg gives a speech on the same subject. At the very least, the issue has become very topical, so all the politicians are lining up to talk about it.

With the habit of the media trailing the speech, days before it happens – and then scarcely reporting it on the day, it is a little difficult to work out when he actually spoke – and even where, and the detail on offer is very thin.

Fortunately, the Lib-Dems have published a full transcript, which runs to over 3,500 words, presenting a choice between reviewing the press reports of the speech, or the real thing. And I've decided to review the actual speech transcript, even if sticking knitting needles in my eyes is probably a happier experience.

Actually, taken as cold, hard text – and ignoring for a moment the political baggage that goes with the speaker, there is some sense in what the man is saying.

"I am never going to advocate pulling up the drawbridge because I think it's what people want to hear", says Clegg. He refuses to mimic the likes of UKIP and others: "the scaremongering, the immigrant-bashing, the seductive promise that all our problems will disappear if only we shut up shop and stick a 'closed' sign on the door".

From there, though, it takes another three hundred words and a reminder that his wife is Spanish before he then tells us that he does not accept that we are a closed society. He does not accept that we are condemned to the same trajectory we are witnessing across parts of Europe, where chauvinism and xenophobia are on the march.

Then, in a statement of the "bleedin' obvious", we are told that: "Successful immigration systems have to be managed". People, Clegg says, "need to see that they are good for society as a whole. Otherwise all you do is create fear and resentment – you give populists an open goal".

With that, we are told that for years our immigration system hasn't been properly managed, so it's no wonder so many people still worry about immigration.

By now, we're over 600 words into the speech, and we're none the wiser about what should be done. We are told what the answer isn't though – it is "not tough talk". Creating his very own straw man, Mr Clegg believes it: "isn't pretending that we can or should boot out every foreigner".

By now we are a fifth of the way into the speech, and only now does Clegg turn his attention to how to deal with immigration. And the answer is ... "... getting down to the nitty-gritty of reforming the system so that it works properly".

For Mr Clegg, it seems, "reform" is quite a favourite strategy, even if it is like turning round the proverbial oil tanker – not helped, he says, by the Conservatives fixation on the net migration target. This is "unrealistic" because it's based on a fallacy. "If a million Brits leave and a million migrants come you get net migration of zero – does that mean you’ve done the job?" Clegg asks.

OK. So far, so good. But what about these reforms? Well, it was right for Theresa May to split the Border Agency two, separate services: visas and enforcement – one to administer legal immigration, the other to prevent illegal immigration – and bring it all back under Ministers' control.

And the Coalition has been very effective on some of the worst loopholes – notably the fake student route. On the last count it had closed down around 750 bogus colleges.

Furthermore, people will no longer be able to play the appeals system so easily – previously you could appeal on 17 different grounds, moving from one to the next each time you were refused. Now there are only four, helping clear the path for genuine appeals too.

The government is also toughening up on people who exploit migrants as cheap labour. Fines for employers paying below the minimum wage have quadrupled to up to £20,000 per employee.

And this is the first government to get a handle on the access migrants from other parts of Europe have to our benefits system. It's a hugely complicated area, says Clegg, and not without controversy, but we're doing it. The period for which you can claim unemployment benefit will be reduced to 3 months unless you have a realistic prospect of finding a job.

Additionally, it has been made impossible for newly arrived migrants to leapfrog local people patiently queuing for social housing. Migrants have to live in an area for two years before they can be added to the list.

All this, of course, has recently been claimed by David Cameron, but we do need to hear what Mr Clegg wants for the future. And here it comes: more needs to be done to bear down on illegal immigration.

In addition to withdrawing thousands of driving licenses from illegal immigrants, we've announced new rules to prevent illegal immigrants from opening bank accounts and we are clamping down on sham marriages too, says the deputy prime minister. The Government is also upping the number of inspectors tasked, specifically, with identifying businesses hiring people, including migrants, for less than the minimum wage.

Mr Clegg then wants proper border checks in place to identify overstayers, restricting the access they then have to benefits and services, finding them, deporting them. Britain used to have exit checks but they were phased out, and Clegg has insisted on reintroducing them. Before the election around 57 percent of entry and exit points were covered by proper checks. They are now at 80 percent.

The second area where more needs to be done is European migration. Freedom of movement between EU member states is a good thing but the way it works should change as Europe changes. It is a right to work. It was never intended as an automatic right to claim benefits, but over time the distinction has been blurred.

The transition controls for new member states had a hidden carve out for the self-employed, which was meant to allow in entrepreneurs who wouldn't fill positions that could otherwise be taken by British nationals and who would actually create jobs instead.

The reality was that Romanians and Bulgarians were taking low-paid jobs but registering as self-employed. Any transition controls for any new member state joining in the future needs the removal of the special exemption for the self-employed.

We also need to be prepared to go beyond the seven-year maximum for transition controls, depending on the size and economy of the country joining the EU – and the extent to which we expect its nationals to look for work here. Clegg also believes we'll need to agree a period of time in which existing member states including Britain retain the right to put on the brakes if people begin arriving in numbers too big for our society to absorb successfully.

Third area of action: everyone who wants to settle in Britain should speak English. There is now a big consensus around this. A common language is the glue that binds a society. The ability to communicate is essential in allowing communities to integrate and in making sure every person living here has a voice.

Now, English language tests are part of all visa applications. The level of English required from skilled workers has been raised, as well as from the husbands and wives of people coming to live and work in the UK. Jobcentre advisers have the power to put people looking for work onto English language courses. If they don't go, they lose benefits.

Clegg now wants to pull every lever we have, or so he says. To that effect, he has told the Passport Office and the DVLA to stop subsidising translation services for people applying for passports and driving licences.

With us still waiting for something of greater substance, though, we suddenly find that Clegg has run out of levers. Without warning, he switches tack to tell us that Britain must remain a magnet for the brightest and the best. Despite a population of 60 million, our businesses need people now, so Mr Clegg wants to bring still more people into the country.

We have to fight for the best people, we are informed. We want the world's best students in our universities – and we should be encouraging them to find high value jobs here afterwards which, in turn, create jobs and growth in our economy.

Mr Clegg, therefore, happily tells us that it is now easier to come to Britain as a young entrepreneur, through the new visa scheme for exceptional graduates with promising business ideas. And he wants a "more intelligent approach" to visas for high value investors.

At the moment they are asked to invest £1m in either a low-risk government bond or shares in a FTSE company, but the thought is that £2m will not put off the kind of people applying for these visas.

And that, my friends, is it. I've been as fair as I can be in my précis, leaving out nothing of any significance. Effectively, all we get is a few tweaks and some tightening up of "pull" factors. What little sense Clegg has to offer is very little indeed. There is nothing in terms of tightening up the treaties – not that there is much hope there – or of dealing with Council of Europe provisions, nor of any need to renegotiate the UN refugee convention.

Right at the beginning of his speech, though, Clegg tells us he leads, in his view, Britain's only real internationalist party. For the Liberal Democrats, he says, "this nation is always at its best when we are open and outward-facing".

Yet Clegg is determinedly inward looking. Not only does he not address the very real problems of international law, some of which are amenable to discussion if not change – but there is not even the slightest attempt to look at "push factors".

Clegg could have talked about trade, about aid, about fisheries, even, about foreign policy aimed at minimising conflict, and even – because he believes in such things – climate change mitigation, aimed at reducing the numbers of "climate refugees".

Sadly, though, Clegg is not on his own. We saw recently Mr Cameron's attempts to cobble together an immigration policy, and Mark Leonard should detain us only briefly.

Disregarding UKIP, which has never had anything sensible to offer, it seems to me that our masters really don't have the first idea of how to deal with our immigration issues. We are getting nothing which could qualify as joined up policy - nothing very much of substance at all.

Lengthy some of the components of this exercise have been, we can now see what we're up against. There are tools, and ideas out there, but the big problem, it seems, is a lack of imagination. We have a policy vacuum, and none of our "leaders" big enough to fill it.

FORUM THREAD