“correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”

Last October I wrote about the revelations of Andrew Teather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He claimed that he had proof that Labour's relaxation of immigration controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

A key passage was that:

"He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.""

At the time the claims of Andrew Teather received less attention than they deserved, the BBC in particular chose to all but ignore them.


Later in October I recorded how Phil Woolas chose to respond to a question posed by Chris Grayling - "I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers."


Today the story moves on to another level as The Telegraph reports that following a Freedom Of Information request by MigrationWatch:

"a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims. "

This story needs to be investigated further and the Labour government pursued over it but I fear that David Cameron still thinks that he can become Prime Minister by being nice and not aggressive. Maybe he will change his mind, today's PMQs would be a good place to start, but I don't think he has the stomach for a proper fight with Gordon Brown and his team.

Meanwhile the BBC have once again chosen to ignore the story on their news pages but do have a magazine type piece entitled "Did immigration transform Britain by accident? " that claims precisely the opposite of what has been revealed recently. David Goodhart claims that

"At no point in the last 12 years does there seem to have been a general discussion in cabinet about the country's immigration strategy.

I have discovered that the final decision to open Britain's labour market to Eastern and Central Europeans was taken by a small group of officials and special advisers before an EU Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels.

It is emblematic of the insouciant way in which the great demographic transformation has occurred.

An accumulation of small decisions, all of them perfectly rational and sensible in their own right, has led to a mighty big - and pretty unpopular - outcome. "

David Goodhart also lists the five main reasons that immigration increased:

"What is more, between 1997 and 2003 there were, I think, five significant government decisions.

First, there was the abolition of the primary purpose rule, very unpopular with South Asians in particular, the repeal of which did have the effect of significantly raising the inward flow of spouses.

Second, there was the introduction of the Human Rights Act, which among many other things made it harder to restrict the number of asylum seekers.

Third, there was a liberalisation of student visas which more than doubled to over 130,000 a year. The government has just announced plans to restrict abuse of the system.

Fourth, there was a similar liberalization of work permits.

Fifth, opening the British labour market to people from the new EU states, seven years before any other big EU member. Instead of a few tens of thousands, more than 1 million people came after 2004. "

Oddly I do not recall the BBC reminding people that "there was a liberalisation of student visas which more than doubled to over 130,000 a year" when they reported the Labour government's plans to restrict abuse of this system just last week.


The massive increase in immigration into the UK over the last 13 years is nothing short of scandalous but, if true, the revelations that it was a deliberate policy of the Labour government may take us towards prosecuting leading government ministers for criminal activity.