DAVID Cameron's crackdown on Britain's "soft touch" immigration system appears to be un-ravelling with confusion over statistics and claims from within the Coalition he is sending out mixed messages.
The Prime Minister's tougher approach is being seen as a direct political response to the rise of UKIP, the anti-European Union party, which has campaigned against what has been termed open-door immigration.
Today, a Comres poll shows UKIP has risen five points to 14% in the past month – its highest rating in the survey – while support for Labour at 38% is down five, for the Conservatives is 28%, down three, and for the Liberal Democrats is 12%, up four.
Perhaps crucially, 18% of people who voted Conservative in 2010 say they would now support UKIP.
Faced with this threat, Mr Cameron used a keynote speech to set out a number of measures to reduce the number of EU migrant workers coming to Britain, who use the NHS, live in council houses and claim work-related benefits.
Yet discord within the Coalition was sounded by one senior UK Government source, who accused the PM of adopting a "two-tone approach" to immigration – sounding tough on immigration at home but urging people to work and study in Britain when he is abroad.
He complained: "There does not appear to be a consistent approach to this issue."
Earlier, Downing Street was keen to point out how there had been, between 2007 and 2012, a "40% increase in the proportion of new social housing that has gone to residents from overseas". Minutes later, the actual rise in terms of overall numbers was given as 6.5% to 9%.
A spokesman denied the Government was using inflammatory figures and accepted this was a "very sensitive public policy issue".
Downing Street also said it was looking at how better to recoup costs to the NHS from citizens from within the European Economic Area – EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway; it was already known £10 million to £20m was being lost. There were later criticisms this did not appear to be a large figure in the overall scheme of the Government's budget.
Later, Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary for England, was asked about lost income to the NHS and said he did not want to speculate.
He then said: "The number we have heard is actually not £20m, it is £200m," and then added: "It is significantly more than that."
In his speech at University Campus Suffolk in Ipswich, Mr Cameron said Britain was a "far richer and stronger society" because of the migrant com-munities who have settled here.
Yet he warned that without proper controls community con-fidence was sapped, resources were stretched and the benefits immigration can bring were lost or forgotten.
The Prime Minister noted how between 1997 and 2009 net migration to the UK had increased by 2.2 million, "more than twice the population of Birmingham".
He warned those coming to Britain they could no longer expect "something for nothing".
From next year, arrivals from the EU will be stripped of jobseekers' benefits after six months unless they can prove they have been actively looking for a job and stand a "genuine chance" of finding one.
New guidance this spring will create a "local residence test" to give local people priority in the waiting list for social housing and ensure migrants become eligible only after they have been in the country for two years.
Mr Cameron said the UK Government would also target illegal immigration, doubling the maximum fine for com-panies which employed illegal workers to £20,000.
He also signalled action against so-called health tourism that could mean non-EU nationals have to prove they hold insurance before getting care.
In response, Chris Bryant for Labour insisted that a number of the measures the Prime Minister was announcing yesterday actually already existed.
He added: "I'm not quite sure what he is doing other than a lot of windy rhetoric."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article