Morning:
8°c
IN A recession, when jobs are under threat, feelings on immigration run particularly high. A poll for the Financial Times suggests that 78 per cent of UK adults believe that jobless immigrants should be asked to leave the country. A majority oppose the right of EU citizens to live and work here.
These sentiments will not translate into government policy: EU citizens cannot be prevented from coming here. Lord Mandelson got into trouble recently by suggesting that East Europeans do work that Britons are unable or unwilling to do. Yet he was right: the service sector depends on them. And anyone who eats British farm produce profits from the work of migrants who do labour that Britons shun.
Non-EU immigration, however, is a matter of government policy. Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, has admitted that the public do not believe that the Government has "got control" of immigration. Its new points-based system, introduced last year, is unlikely to be enough to restore confidence after a decade of relaxed immigration controls. Recent statistics suggest that the number of foreign workers increased last year by 175,000, to 2.4 million; there have been considerably more than three million new citizens over the past 10 years. And while immigrants have assisted economic growth they also inevitably have needs for schools, health, transport and housing, which must be met by the state, not their employers.
There is, therefore, scope for a policy such as that proposed by the Conservatives of an annual cap on non-EU immigration. This must reflect the needs of the economy - a bar on US bankers who come to work in the City, once the downturn is over, would be a retrograde step. But a prudent immigration policy would balance the needs of employers and the rest of society more sensitively than that of the past decade.
Curse of drink
Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, has issued his annual report on the state of the nation's health with a controversial proposal to increase the minimum price of a unit of alcohol to 50p, which would bring the price of the cheapest bottle of wine to around £4.50. If implemented, he says, this would lead after a decade to 100,000 fewer hospital admissions a year for alcohol-related problems. He goes further, identifying a problem he calls "passive drinking", by which he appears to mean the real damage that people's excess drinking can cause those around them. It was Sir Liam who first proposed the ban on smoking in public places, based on the argument of passive smoking. Yet one person's drinking is not another's health problem; we do not get drunk on alcohol fumes.
Sir Liam's idea has got short shrift from government, with the Prime Minister expressing reservations about penalising the many for the excesses of the few. But the Government should feel some unease about the disquieting state of the nation's drinking habits because it reflects the failure of its own policies. Its liberalisation of the licensing laws did not create a Continental-style drinking culture but one in which it became ever easier to consumer large amounts of drink in public places. If the Government did not create the nihilistic drinking habits evident in city centres, it certainly did nothing to curb them. Sir Liam may be right that price and accessibility affect how much people drink, but imposing a blanket increase on the price of drink is not the solution.
Spotters' rights
The efforts to ban trainspotters from King's Cross station are heavy-handed and pointless. They are said to pose a security risk, although there would appear to be little chance of terrorists infiltrating trainspotters' clubs. Moreover, while the behaviour of trainspotters might seem eccentric - anorak-clad and clutching Thermos flasks - they are part of the rich mix of the capital's great mainline stations. All humanity seems to pass through King's Cross: trainspotters have as much right to be there as the rest of London.
Reader views (3)
The same immigration policy should apply to everyone, whether from Italy or India, France or the Phillipines, Austria or Australia.
Discriminating in favour of Europeans but against others is racist.
- Gadfly, Norwich, England, 17/03/2009 06:32
Report abuse
it just goes to show that you can't be too careful
- Frank Pitt, Liverpool, 16/03/2009 16:47
Report abuse
Do we live in a democracy? Have the people ever been asked? Should we hold those who have been ignored on the issue of immigration - both EU and non-EU continue to be ignored?
From these comments it appears that you think so. Just maybe the political class should be a little humble on this matter. After all it not the politician's country, it is the people's and by ignoring or dismissing their legitimate concerns all you do is drive a deeper wedge between them, and those who presume to govern them.
UKIP believe that Britain should be able to decide whther it would like people to come here, whether or not they are from the EU or elsewhere. Why should a Bulgarian, or Frenchman take priority over an Austrailian?
- Gawain Towler, Wimborne/Brussels, 16/03/2009 11:09
Report abuse
