Kris Hopkins: Immigration debate is too important to be left solely to the extreme right

Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, stood in my seat of Keighley in 2005 and more than 5,000 people voted for him. In the same period, four councillors representing the BNP were elected.

I have no doubt that immigration was one of the reasons why those people secured so many votes. It was a failure not only of the previous government, but of our party to challenge what was going on and to participate in the debate.

One of my previous roles was leader of Bradford Council. The district owes much of its historic wealth to its migrant populace, which includes a huge German population, a huge Irish community and a massive east European community, as well as the Pakistani community that is dominant now.

Each of those component migrant groups brought an immense wealth to our great city and district. One area is called Little Germany because of the huge work and wealth that the German migrant community and traders brought in. It has the finest architecture in the district.

Although it is important that we have a conversation about migration and immigration, it is also important to contextualise some of the positive economic reasons why we need a balanced migration policy.

I will give the political response. When I was knocking on doors before the general election, I saw a lack of confidence in our border controls. Many felt absolute despair that the previous government had lost control of inward migration and could not even quantify the number of people coming in, which led to far-right parties gaining more support.

That was why it was important that I, as a more centrist member of the Conservative Party, engaged with the issue. People wanted to hear sensible mainstream parties engaging.

I do not think the electorate sit there and try to differentiate between EU and non-EU. They see it as a migrant issue that we need to address. The Prime Minister spoke earlier this year about a cross-government immigration system, and he picked up on a couple of issues.

He talked about stopping a benefits system that people perceived as a soft touch and ensuring that the entitlement to public services was something that migrants earned, rather than had an absolute right to straight away, which is important. He also talked about cracking down on illegal working, and there was a significant amount of that in the district I represented. There is a grey economy that is unchecked and needs to be challenged.

As a consequence of the Conservative-led coalition, immigration has been checked and reduced by a third. That is a huge figure that will give many of my constituents confidence.

We are beginning to take control of migration and we are, with some more structural challenges, challenging the border control agency as well. The other points that the Prime Minister made were about cutting benefits for non-EU nationals after six months, which is important, and stopping the “something for nothing” social housing access.

We also get a significant number of people coming to our district with genuine health problems, and there is an issue with repeat prescriptions and people sending them back home. We need to understand and challenge that and, if we are going to offer that service, we need to charge for it.

There is an issue that health professionals need to debate, because when someone arrives unconscious at A&E, they are not going to check their passport to see whether the person is eligible to be cared for. I would not want a system that did not ensure that people with that need were cared for first, before we started talking about their nationality.

We have robust and thoughtful immigration controls and management in this country. The politics of immigration should be led by the mainstream parties, not left to the far right.

As such, I am concerned that the Government manage the controls and the arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania. It is about managing expectations, not only of those in this country, but of those who may travel here.

However there is a danger that the tone of the immigration debate, in particular on Romania and Bulgaria, will become increasingly ratcheted up in a race for crescendo, for the ideal hard-line rhetoric associated with immigration, but that would be self-defeating and, if we are not careful, it will play to the advantage of the far right.

We want the right language and tone as mentioned: factual arguments and a measured debate. People need to see that action is being delivered, that the control measures have been put 
in place and that we have managed borders. I believe that the Government is on the right track to addressing the many issues that Labour failed to address.