The furore surrounding the defence secretary is distracting attention from some stories
that are threatening the coalition’s tranquillity. Benedict Brogan reports that the Health Bill is being amended out of existence by a
cabal of Lib Dem peers, a campaigned that was mooted during the party conference season. The
rebellion is apparently aggravating Number 10, which understood that Nick Clegg had secured his party’s support for the diluted programme which emerged after the recent “listening
exercise”. Labour’s numerical superiority in the House of Lords means that ministers will have to be at their most mellifluous to bring the errant Lib Dems back to the fold, because Tory
backbenchers are clear that they will not stomach further revisions. The scene is set for a conflagration.
Immigration is the other issue of the day. David Cameron spoke on the matter earlier this
afternoon, reiterating his ambition that net migration be reduced from the 100,000s to the 10,000s. Much of the speech was old hat: he had stern words about bogus colleges, promoting British
workers and illegal immigration. The bulk of his speech, though, was devoted to reducing what he termed as “family migration”. He said that families accompanying migrants generally
accounts for one fifth of all non-EU migration and announced that those who sponsor migrants’ visa will be vetted more closely. In particular, the government hopes to raise the minimum
level of post-tax earnings for migration sponsors in Britain (beyond its current average of less than £20,000 per annum) to ensure that migrants’ families are not an
excessive burden on the welfare state. Cameron also pledged to make migrants wait longer for passports to be awarded to spouses, to discourage bogus marriages. Finally, he announced a
consultation to criminalise forced marriages and he suggested that prosecutions should be brought on those who breach existing legislation against forced marriages, which he said had lapsed in
recent years. A casual observer might see that these issues could relate to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act – and Cameron mentioned his proposed reform of that article during his
speech, laying the ground for a scrap with the Lib Dems and the left wing of his own party.
Overall, the speech was remarkable for its emphasis on controlling immigration as a social necessity, concentrating on strained public services, family cohesion, stable marriages and so forth.
Indeed, Cameron said comparatively little about the relationship between immigration and the economy. He mentioned that the cap on non-EU migration had been “undersubscribed every
month” since its introduction, and rather obviously glossed over the fact that the labour market is relatively depressed at present. His declaration that the Migration Advisory Committee is
examining whether the cap is too high was delivered rather half-heartedly, a stance which became even more half-hearted during the Q&A that followed. This suggests that Cameron may want to
debate immigration without having to refer to anaemic economic growth.
Comments