🤝 Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension

• The debate was initiated by Dave Robertson, who emphasized the importance of a serious and balanced discussion about migration. He acknowledged the historical contributions of migrants to the UK but also recognized the public’s concerns about recent spikes in immigration numbers.

• Robertson highlighted that net migration to the UK reached over 750,000 in the year ending June 2024, a significant increase compared to pre-pandemic levels. He detailed that most migrants came from non-EU countries, primarily for work, study, or asylum.

• The debate focused on a petition calling for a five-year suspension of both legal and illegal immigration, reflecting widespread public worry about the current migration situation.

• Sir John Hayes argued that the UK has experienced too much immigration for too long, impacting public services and the economy. He suggested that legal migration poses a greater challenge than illegal migration and emphasized the need for a skills-based approach to immigration.

• Jacob Collier opposed the petition’s call for a suspension of immigration, arguing that it would harm sectors like the NHS and hospitality that rely on migrant workers. He supported the government’s efforts to control migration and improve border security.

• Carla Denyer criticized the petition’s stance and highlighted the benefits of immigration to the UK economy and society. She argued that the real issues affecting the public, such as housing and wages, are not caused by migrants but by systemic failures and corporate practices.

• Josh Newbury discussed the strain of high immigration on local infrastructure and services. He supported linking immigration policies with education and skills training to address workforce shortages and reduce reliance on migrant labor.

• Richard Tice advocated for “smart immigration” that focuses on skilled workers and integrates them into society. He criticized the lack of planning for population growth and called for a pause on net immigration.

• Olly Glover emphasized the importance of addressing the root causes of migration, including war and economic disparity. He supported the need for a fair and effective immigration system that works in tandem with a strong domestic workforce.

• Katie Lam acknowledged the public’s frustration with the handling of immigration by successive governments. She suggested a selective immigration system focused on high-skilled migrants who would be net contributors to the economy.

• The Minister for Security, Dan Jarvis, responded by outlining the government’s plans to reduce net migration and strengthen border security. He emphasized the need for a managed migration policy that is fair, effective, and in the national interest, rather than a suspension of immigration.

The session on ‘Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension’ featured a range of viewpoints and some instances of disagreement, but it remained a relatively orderly and respectful debate. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements and the rationale for the rating of 3:

1. Tone and Respectfulness: Despite differing views, the Members of Parliament maintained a respectful tone throughout the session. There were no personal attacks or aggressive exchanges, which kept the level of disagreement moderate. For example, Dave Robertson emphasized the importance of having a ‘grown-up debate’, which set a cooperative tone for the discussion.

2. Disagreements on Policy Solutions: Several MPs expressed contrasting views on the solution to high immigration levels. Sir John Hayes argued for reducing immigration significantly, suggesting it has been too high for too long and causing strain on public services. On the other hand, Jacob Collier and Olly Glover highlighted the importance of migrants to the workforce and public services, particularly in sectors like healthcare and science, suggesting a more balanced approach to controlling immigration rather than sudden halts.

3. Different Interpretations of Economic Impact: The economic impact of immigration was a point of contention. Sir John Hayes and Katie Lam argued that high levels of immigration impose significant economic costs and cited statistics to back their claims. In contrast, Dave Robertson and Olly Glover mentioned the economic contributions of migrants, suggesting that the impact on jobs and wages is minimal and manageable with proper policies.

4. Approach to Illegal Immigration: There was disagreement on how to handle illegal immigration, particularly regarding the dangerous channel crossings. Richard Tice criticized the previous Conservative government’s approach as ineffective, suggesting a need for immediate and decisive action. In contrast, Dan Jarvis outlined the new government’s plans to establish a Border Security Command and deepen cooperation with other countries, indicating a different strategy to tackle the issue.

5. Long-term Planning and Public Sentiment: Richard Tice argued for better long-term planning for population growth, suggesting a policy of net zero immigration until the infrastructure catches up. This view contrasts with others who expressed concerns about the practicality and potential negative economic impacts of such a drastic measure, as voiced by Josh Newbury and Dave Robertson.

6. Cultural and Social Integration: Katie Lam and Sir John Hayes expressed concerns about the cultural assimilation of immigrants, suggesting that a policy prioritizing skilled migrants and those from similar cultural backgrounds could enhance integration. This point of view was not directly contested, but the overall tone of the session suggested an implicit disagreement, with other members focusing more on the economic benefits and the humanitarian aspects of migration.

In summary, while there were distinct disagreements on policy solutions, economic impacts, approaches to illegal immigration, and aspects of cultural integration, these were expressed in a manner that maintained the session’s decorum. The disagreements were substantive and expected given the topic’s complexity, but they did not escalate to a level that would warrant a higher rating of disagreement. Therefore, I rate the session a 3 out of 5 for disagreement, reflecting a balance between clear policy differences and a respectful exchange of ideas.