01x01 - Episode 1

[bunniefuu]

If I could link, in the minds
of the British people,

immigration with membership
of the European Union,

then everything would change.

We haven't got enough houses
now as it is.

So where are you going to put them?

Just remember how many immigrants,
like my family,

like a lot of the people
in this audience's family,

have built this nation.

The problem has been that
immigrants, asylum seekers,

have all been confused

in the popular mind.

Anti-immigration groups
were behind disturbances in several

English towns and cities last night.

One of the protesters told me
the country was full

and foreigners were the problem.

The idea that we had some sort
of open-door immigration policy

is just absolute nonsense.

We wanted to see strict limits
at a scale that was not

going to disturb the nature

of our very historic
and peaceful country.

What I saw was the tabloid press

becoming unhinged about this issue.

British jobs for British workers.

Net immigration in
the tens of thousands.

My promise to you -
to stop the boats.

There is a pervasive view

that more immigration
is better for the country.

It was too high,
it wasn't being controlled,

it needed to be controlled.

The fact is, we're not
in control of it

and to say otherwise
is misleading the public.

Our ambition for ourselves is
matched by our sense of compassion

and decency and duty
towards other people.

Simple values

- but the right ones.
- CHEERING

The problems caused by the recession
have left building contractors

with a severe skills shortage.

It's already biting and
it's likely to get worse.

British businesses are finding
it increasingly difficult to hire

skilled computer specialists.

The government's concerned about
shortages of skilled workers

as unemployment falls.

Back in 1997, because I had
employment as well as education,

I was interested in what was
happening with the labour market.

And my input to that was to say,
"Yes, there's an intermediate period

"in which we will need to accept

"quite large-scale legal migration."

Britain has a serious shortage
of skilled workers, so much so

that the government says

it's in danger of holding back
the economy.

Could one solution be
to relax immigration rules?

Because our economy was strong

and we were bringing a lot of people
in

to work in sectors where
we needed that workforce,

it also had an economic
benefit for the country.

In these early days of New Labour,
there was still some nervousness

about immigration, and particularly
as immigration is being seen

as a key central
part of economic policy.

I first started working on migration
in the Cabinet Office.

Insofar as we could
draw conclusions,

migrants, on the whole, contribute
more in terms of the taxes they pay

and so on than what they take out
in terms of consumption

of public services.

Migrants helped sort of grease
the wheels of the labour market

by filling in areas where
there's particularly

high demand or shortages.

So migration had significant
economic benefits for the UK.

We produced a report called

The Economic and Social Impacts
of Migration.

When the Prime Minister,
Tony Blair, saw it,

he actually said it would be quite
beneficial to have this stuff

informing the public debate.

Well, there's no doubt
that if you're attracting,

for example, highly skilled migrants
into the country, then it's got

an economic benefit.

I don't think at the time I
was elected as an MEP I'd realised

quite what the extent of the labour
plan was, but it didn't take me long

after I was elected to realise
that we were entering into

mass migration on a scale that had
never been contemplated

in British history.

Well, at least Tony Blair
was honest.

He said, we're going to open
the doors to the whole world.

The idea that we had some sort
of open-door immigration policy

is just absolute nonsense.

We were constantly on it
and legislating.

And because you've got controls,

you can then make the case as to why

controlled immigration

is actually a good thing.

I saw a letter from Professor
David Coleman of Oxford University

about the whole immigration problem.

And I thought that
it made a lot of sense.

The scale of immigration had trebled
in a matter of two or three years,

which, over time, we thought was
going to make a big difference

to the nature of our society.

As a result of that, we wanted
to see strict limits on immigration,

confined to people we really needed

and at a scale that was not
going to disturb the nature

of our very historic
and peaceful country.

I first came across Migration Watch
in the early 2000s,

when I was in the Department for
Work and Pensions,

and some of the analysis that they
produced of the numbers

and projections of migration figures
was actually quite useful

and reasonably rigorous.

There was, however, a pretty
strongly xenophobic tone

to a lot of their
policy recommendations.

It was all about migrants
undermining British culture

or whatever, which I thought

was pretty obnoxious, frankly.

The risk always, if you're trying
to talk about immigration

from a logical and sensible
point of view, someone will say,

"Oh, he's a r*cist," or whatever,
and we just ignore that.

They were a very important group.

Andrew Green, you know,
former British ambassador,

sets up Migration Watch.

And I remember within two weeks
talking to Andrew Green. He said,

"Look, we're going to be apolitical.

"We're just going to do numbers.

"We're just going to do analysis."

And I thought, hooray!

Because if I start to say this stuff
without it being backed up

by a rigorous academic source,
you know,

I'm going to get in trouble.

Little did I realise what that
relationship with Migration Watch

back in 2001 would mean.


on New York and Washington,

America and Britain have begun
the military campaign

against Osama Bin Laden
and the Taliban regime.

On my orders, the United States
military has begun strikes

against Al-Qaeda t*rror1st training
camps and military installations

of the Taliban regime
in Afghanistan.

Thousands of Afghan refugees

are still trying to cross the border
into Pakistan.

Caught up in a conflict
they did not desire

and can scarcely comprehend,

these people no longer feel safe
in their own country.

The problem is that
nobody else wants them.

The life in Afghanistan is very bad,

so we can't live there.

So we heard that, in London,

it's a good life for Afghan people,
for refugees.

I worked most of my life
in UK with migrants,

including asylum seekers
and refugees.

An asylum seeker is someone
who has come to a country

to seek protection
under international law.

No-one leaves a country easily,

especially if you're seeking
asylum, usually you are,

you're forced to leave.

You had to leave because, you know,
your life is in danger.

The evidence was that the majority
of asylum seekers

were really economic migrants.

They weren't genuinely
seeking asylum.

Now, let me be clear about this.

These people who are economic
migrants, they're not bad people.

They're going in search
of a better life.

But you can't have people coming

in and claiming asylum on the basis

of political persecution when
they're really economic migrants.

Some have paid
international traffickers.

Others, simply taken a chance.

Many are keen to be found
so they can make a claim for asylum.

The encampment, known as Sangatte,

on the shores of France,

had become a magnet for people
being smuggled by criminals,

by organised gangs
across the continent.

The Sangatte refugee camp
is two short kilometres

from the Eurotunnel terminal.

The proximity is the problem.

It's been called a departure lounge
for ill*gal immigrants,

people travelling without
proper documentation.

Their sole intention
is to reach the UK.

I wrote my first migration story

when the Daily Mail asked me
to go to Calais.

I had a VIP seat at the back
of a lorry

and we proceeded to go
through the security -

no checks - into the ferry.

HORN BLARES

After four hours, we entered the UK.

As we were going up the motorway,
we heard a knocking and it was a...

RAPS THREE TIMES

We had no idea who or
how many people were in there.

The doors were opened and the first
thing that happened was a voice

saying, "I'm so sorry."

The person climbed out.

He was mid-30s.

I questioned him on
which country he came from.

He said Iraq.

He said his name was Adel
and he just ran.

That was my first experience
of meeting a migrant.

At the Eurotunnel terminal,

a nightly drama is played out.

A mass of refugees,

sometimes hundreds,
charge for the trains.

Their hope is that a handful
may get through.

I can't remember the issue of
immigration coming up in the first

two years of my time editing
The Sun, but that changed.

There was huge anger on the paper
internally and from the readers

about an issue that was being
mismanaged by the Blair government.

The legal bill for asylum seekers
more than doubled

to £138 million last year.

In some cities in the UK, local
authorities are struggling to cope

with the extra strain

the record number of asylum seekers
are putting on services.

Personally, I think
they're milking the country,

to be honest with you.

Another factor which
very much changed everything,

which cannot be underestimated,
is 9/11.

That changed the view of people

coming from certain parts
of the world.

It's not that we're
going to be overrun by people,

it's that we don't know
who's coming into the country.

It became a security story
and a security threat.

Britain has agreed to take 1,000
Iraqi Kurds on work visas

and about 200 Afghans.

The rest will be dealt with
by the French.

But when told their only option
is to apply for asylum in France,

they start to chant.

England!
I want England!

England! England! England! England!

We legislated.

We pulled them back down.

I remember having meeting
after meeting in Downing Street

on this issue and, in the end,

changing the personnel in order

to get the result we wanted.

If you reassure people
that you know what you're doing,

that we've got a grip
of the problem,

that will open their minds

and their hearts
to those who really,

genuinely should be here
in this country.

There was this persistent

sort of background noise

from particularly
Tory-supporting papers,

who seemed at times
to find ways almost every day

to contrive to make immigration
and asylum seekers

a front-page issue, whipping it up.

I would spend a lot of time
at focus groups.

The Sun readership was white, male.

And if you had images on the front
of the paper of people

who were not white,
coming from parts of the world

that our readers
would have no understanding of,

the emotion that that would
elicit from our readers

was fear.

That comes from racism.

"I don't know these people.

"They may harm me.

"They may harm my family."

These tropes, they're
manna from heaven -

because not only do they get
everybody going, they sell.

I had huge misgivings about

the direction of our own coverage
of this issue.

What I saw was tabloid press

becoming unhinged about immigration.

And there was this story that
asylum seekers were eating swans.

I came to this country as a refugee,

and I've been working in this field

of protection and
migration justice for 30 years.

And it was...

..it was the craziest thing

that I've ever seen on a front page.

But The Sun did not
publish an apology.

They published a correction buried
somewhere in the back pages -

like a tiny little correction.

And there was a front page
a few months after I left The Sun

that immigrants are k*lling
and eating the Queen's swans,

which clearly was not the case but,
if you hear that,

you're going to go into conference
and say, "Guess what, boss."

And nobody in that room is going
to say, "Hang on a minute.

"Do you think we could just
double check that?"

Are the large number of
asylum seekers

in danger of causing social unrest?

So how should we deal with
asylum seekers?

Do you think asylum seekers
are causing social unrest,

social tension,
racial tension, Elaine?

I don't think it, I know it.

I've experienced it.

I know for a fact -
from a neighbour of mine -

some of the asylum seekers
have paid £2,000, £3,000,

£4,000, £5,000 to come over here.

Where did they get the money
from in the beginning?

Is Britain a soft touch
for asylum seekers?

Or are we turning away
the poor and the desperate

to face persecution, even death?

You'll be able to vote by phone,
text or interactive TV.

Then we'll compare your vote
with the real Home Office decision.

To this day, I don't know
what the BBC was thinking

that this would achieve,

but it was really a scary time.

If people are reading it
on their front pages

and they're seeing it
on their television

night after night,
they're going to react.

We seem to be a very open country,

where anybody is allowed
to come here

and do anything
and get away with anything.

How many people do
you need to welcome?

I mean, it could be
a lot more done

for elderly people and
everything else, couldn't there?

You know, people... people
of our own nationality.

The problem has been that
immigrants,

asylum seekers,

ill*gal asylum seekers,

have all been confused
in the popular mind.

Confusion which is whipped up

by elements of the popular press,

and some politicians.

I think my first television
interview, certainly with the BBC,

that was a step forward.

Recently, there's been a surge
in asylum seekers,

and today, Migration Watch UK
claims that over the next decade,

there'll be two million
new arrivals.

Clearly, migrants have value.

Some migrants have value
to our economy.

The balance is between the value
that some of them bring

and the sheer cost in infrastructure

of two million people
every ten years.

The press was quite good on asylum

because you could take
photographs of it,

but it was very weak in other
respects and there was

certainly very little understanding
of what it might lead to.

We were trying to say
to the world at that time,

it's immigration as a whole
that matters,

not just asylum seekers.

In my view, there was a conspiracy

that did lead to a substantial
increase in immigration.

There was clearly a big danger
that the issues relating

to the growth in the number
of asylum seekers

would just dominate the agenda
and push out any

rational discussion of the broader

economic and social issues
surrounding migration.

I worked as an adviser to
David Blunkett in the Home Office.

Everyone was focused on asylum.

The view that was held by David
and by Tony Blair and others,

that if you could sort out
the problems in the asylum system,

if people were fully
reassured by that,

then they would not be bothered
about legal migration,

people coming through the economic
routes to work and study here.

So that was their settled view.

But I was increasingly
disagreeing with it,

and I did start to try and have
the argument inside Labour

that, actually, some of this

is about the immigration system
as a whole.

Polling and focus groups
consistently, I think, showed us

that most voters
don't really differentiate

between different categories
of people coming to our country.

They tend not to differentiate
between somebody who's coming here,

for argument's sake,
as an asylum seeker

or somebody who's coming here
as an economic migrant.

The question is, are there
too many people here?

My view is that, you know,
we need to think about

whether we need to change
our policy on that

and also the way that
we talk about that.

But that felt like a pretty lonely
position to have within Labour.

And we felt that we were

banging our heads against the wall
a bit on that.

Michael Howard has been confirmed

as the new leader
of the Conservative Party.

How will you actually change
the Conservative Party

under your leadership?
More of that later.

Well, when you become Leader
of the Opposition, you obviously

think about the issues which
you think are important to people.

Immigration was always
one of those issues

which I would have to raise -

whether or not I was going to
be accused of being r*cist -

from the word go.

In the early 2000s, we were
still living with the memory

of Enoch Powell and the things
that he had said.

Some of the things he said
were right, of course.

The thing was much too...
Immigration was much too high

and would have implications, etc,

but he overshot very seriously

and shot himself in the foot,
really.

So we had to be particularly careful
not to appear to be

part of any such movement.

One of the key elements
that we were stressing

is what we called net migration.

It's the number of people who come
to the UK for more than six months

minus the number who leave.

That is the key.

I didn't like Migration Watch,
and it felt to me that

these were people that were
likely to cause problems,

not find solutions to problems.

They are assisting the
sort of industry of fear.

But nevertheless,
they were very, very important

because they put numbers
on the problem.

And once you have numbers,

you have an irresistible force
in the newsroom.

We are talking about a net increase
of people coming into this country

over those going out
of about 200,000 people.

That's a city the size of
Milton Keynes or Newcastle.

Now, for how long is that
sustainable?

Well, it's permanently
sustainable at that level.

Jeremy Paxman talked about


Well, nobody else had used
those numbers before,

but they were indeed our numbers.

There is, in your judgment,

no notional maximum population
of this country?

No, I don't think there is,
but I think we need to work on

much more robust projections.

It was changing the whole nature
of the debate to make people aware

that numbers are important,
were growing

and needed to be considered.

So we can just carry on adding
another million every five years,

more or less indefinitely?

No, I see no obvious limit.
I see a balance.

I was in the room, actually,
when he gave the interview.

This was not a line that
we had rehearsed before,

and even as he said it,
I sort of winced...

..because I knew it was
going to be a problem.

That was gold dust for us.

It was very controversial,
and we felt that we were...

..we were getting places.

It's going to become a very
crowded island, isn't it?

It IS a crowded island.

We've always been a crowded,
vigorous island.

Parts of it are much less crowded
than others,

and there is a balance to be struck.

I got on extremely well with Jeremy,

but that was an occasion
when I could have thumped him.

And I still can't answer
the question,

"What is the upper limit that is
acceptable in our country?"

What David Blunkett said
was absolutely consistent

with the whole attitude
of that Labour government.

They didn't think there was an
upper limit of immigration -

they were encouraging it,

and it took place
in very large numbers.

Came at a time when people
felt that we didn't care

about overall numbers.
And it is true that we didn't...

We weren't caring enough
about overall numbers.

What David said was completely
misinterpreted.

What he was saying was that...

..provided it's a decision as
to who comes in and who doesn't,

there's not some arbitrary number
that you put in place.

You don't choose a magic number.

There are times in life when

pressure groups are really
important.

They display a widespread
commitment and feeling.

And there are other times
when you have an organisation,

if I could use the expression
one man and a dog,

but they get enormous attention.

And it's a real worry
when that happens

because it changes the nature
of the debate.

Numbers are a polite way

of expressing hostility
to migration as a whole.

Under the proposals announced
by the Home Secretary on Monday,

will net immigration rise or fall?

The abuses will be weeded out

and as a result of an
end to chain migration,

the numbers probably will fall, yes.

Isn't the difference between us
that we will impose an annual

limit on immigration,
he refuses to do that,

and isn't that why only
a Conservative government

can be relied on to bring
immigration under control?

I did meet Andrew Green,
and I think that the information

they've provided has
been quite useful.

The Conservatives were interested,
I think, because they could see

the public didn't like the scale
of immigration that was developing

and they could see that this was
leading to difficulties.

We've seen immigration triple
under Mr Blair.

We believe that immigration
has to be limited

and brought under control.

All these people seem to come
in and, before you know it,

they've sort of got loads of money.

So... But, yeah, I do think that
we let too many people in.

There were very real concerns

in large sections of the public
about this issue,

and I was responding
to those concerns

in a practical and entirely
responsible way.

The slogan, "Are you thinking
what we're thinking?"

It was saying some things which we -

the silent, right-thinking
majority -

think, but which they -

the sort of fashionable people
in Westminster -

don't think we should say.

I thought Michael Howard was right

to highlight the importance
of immigration.

It had grown hugely in recent years.

It wasn't properly being discussed
and debated by politicians.

Indeed, I was involved in writing
that 2005 manifesto.

In the 2001 national campaign,
it was regarded as untouchable.

Now it's mainstream, and lots of
candidates right round the country

will tell you how effective
it's been for them on the doorstep.

We've got Michael Howard and he's
beginning to get, hopefully, get

the country back together - our
heritage, what really belongs to us.

The people that are coming in,
I think it should be, like, limited.

And if he can do something
to help that, then fine.

I talked about policing
and health and education,

but I did also
talk about immigration.

I was frustrated by the extent
to which the media focused almost,

well, very largely on immigration.

Tony Blair has accused
the Conservatives

of playing politics with asylum and
immigration out of desperation.

I think that our work before
and during that election achieved

a great deal in terms of immigration
being understood as a problem.

Tony Blair has won an historic
third term in office, but Labour's

majority in the House of Commons
has been sharply reduced.

I've listened and I've learned,
and I think I've a very clear idea

of what the British people
now expect.

Ironically enough, I was told
by one senior Labour figure

after the election that the mistake
I made was not going hard

enough on immigration.

DAVID CAMERON: It was too high.

It wasn't being controlled.

It needed to be controlled.

I thought that was essential.

And I think Andrew Green
was helpful in that regard.

I met him after 2005.

He actually lived near my
constituency and I went to go

and see him. He said, "Come and
see me, I'm a former diplomat,

"but also I've got this project
on migration."

And, actually, Andrew Green
brought some rigour to the different

categories, the different policies,
the different potential approaches.

Ten new countries have been formally
welcomed into the European Union.

The historic expansion creates
the world's largest trading bloc,

bringing the population of the EU
to 455 million and has been greeted

with celebrations across
the continent.

We had 600,000 vacancies
in the system.

That's huge.

How are we going to fill those jobs?

The economy was doing well.

It needed more people than we had in
the UK, and there was a very strong

sense from Number 10
and in the Treasury and the business

departments of Whitehall,
that it was good for the economy

to encourage legal migration.

We were big champions of European
enlargement.

Britain, both under the previous
government and under my government

particularly, were staunch advocates
of these Eastern European countries,

the former Soviet Union countries
coming into the European Union

and joining NATO.

We face a clear choice.

Use the opportunities of accession
to help fill those gaps with legal

migrants, able to pay taxes
and pay their way,

or deny ourselves that chance,

hold our economy back, and in all
likelihood see a significant

increase in ill*gal working
and the black economy.

We described that as unforgivable,
because we could see

that the numbers were already
high and rising.

This was a decision that was
completely unnecessary,

and we were strongly opposed to it.

I remember the three UKIP MEPs
were in the chamber in Strasbourg

voting on EU enlargement,
and I remember that day -

we were the only British MEPs
that voted

against former communist
countries joining.

As we left the chamber,

I turned to my two colleagues and
said, that is the best day's work

we will ever do as MEPs.

The Nigel Farage narrative
goes back a long way.

That's a consistent rhetoric
in British politics.

And Nigel Farage just picked
it up and ran with it.

The point about the anti-European
narrative was that underlying

it was a fear and concern
about foreigners, generally.

At London's Victoria coach station,
another coach arrives from Poland.

It's a common sight.


that operate from here

are from the new EU accession
states.

The flow of people they've brought
has been profound.

I was overwhelmed by the numbers
coming in.

I did interview people as they came
off the buses, and it became clear

to me that, you know, this was
actually out of control.

And I know we hate the word
"control", because it sounds

as though you're anti-migrant,
but, you know, a country

without any borders isn't
really a country at all.

I think my career and UKIP's
propulsion was directly

down to the increasing size
of the population as a result

of opening the door unconditionally
to a lot of people

from former communist countries.

I think EU enlargement was our
biggest mistake.

Given that we understood what a
potent political force

immigration could be,

it was a mistake not to allow
a transition period.

It was understandable we did
what we did,

which was prioritise the economy.

But part of the problem
on immigration was that it would

always be the economy first
and immigration second,

or it would be foreign policy first
and immigration second.

And actually, sometimes
immigration needed to come first.

After EU enlargement,
when we started to get quite

significant numbers of people coming
to the UK, we started to find

in the opinion research this growing
sense that actually our public

services are already under pressure.

It meant that immigration went from
being, you know, issue number five

or six in the opinion polls, to
often being issue number one or two.

They're coming in this country -

no wonder we've got
no hospital beds.

I myself am not r*cist.

I just want to see an end
to all this immigration over here.

The language people started to use
in focus groups was one of fairness,

that it doesn't feel fair
that someone could come

to our country from a different
country and draw on our public

services, to draw on our
benefit system, social housing.

I think they're letting too many
immigrants in.

They're taking all our jobs.

You know, I've been looking
for work for a long time now,

there's nothing about.

I remember having some conversations
with Treasury officials.

It was their view that migration
was positive for the economy

as a whole, in terms of taxes,
you know,

less the use of public
services and benefits.

But what they missed was a lot
of the concern.

It characterised us in the way
that our political enemies

had been trying desperately
to characterise us for the previous

seven years in government.

This will be a new government
with new priorities.

Let the work of change begin.

Figures for the last ten
years, show the net number

of migrants have trebled.

We're now receiving very nearly
a migrant a minute,

and that simply can't continue.

It means more homes are needed and
to go with them,

more schools, shops, offices,
and hospitals.

And some think these kind of
increases are simply unsustainable.

And there's the real concern.
Whatever economic benefits

there might be from immigration,
there are social consequences, too.

If worries over resources
aren't dealt with, resentment

might become expl*sive.

I moved to Number 10 in 2007
with Gordon Brown.

It was becoming clearer and clearer
to me that immigration was a major

issue, because we did have bigger
numbers coming from Eastern Europe

than were expected.

Also, you started to hear
about the pressure that new migrants

were putting on public services
and on housing.

While some of this was exaggerated,
actually, some of it was real.

On the one hand, the Government
wants to talk up the economic

benefits of immigration.

Yesterday, it was telling us that
foreign workers added £6 billion

to the economy last year.

On the other hand, feedback
from official bodies around the UK

now shows us something of
the downside,

with pressure on public services
and concerns about the impact

on crime, health, housing,
and education.

The Government's critics say
action is long overdue.

This is our vision.

Britain leading the global economy -
by our skills and creativity,

by our enterprise and flexibility,

drawing on the talents of
all to create British jobs

for British workers.

He famously used the phrase,
the slogan,

"British jobs for British workers",

talking at the party conference
and at the TUC.

And if we make the right decisions,
we can advance even further

and faster to full employment
than ever before, with a British job

on offer for every British worker.

I don't like to bandy around words
like lie, but I think, you know

there is something a little bit
misleading about the claim

that you can set up a category
of jobs simply intended for British

people, as a member state
of the European Union,

because that would fall
foul of European Union law.

There goes my Christmas
card from Gordon.

We were going to have migrants
coming here and taking jobs.

Gordon never thought that
was going to happen.

So in some sense, he was just
setting himself up for failure.

I thought it implicitly appeared
to adopt some of the rhetoric

of the far right.

And I have to say, Mr Speaker, I
did a bit more research, to find out

where he got his slogans from.

Here's one he borrowed
off the National Front.

Here's another one he borrowed
off the British National Party.

Yes.

Where was his moral compass
when he was doing that?

The strapline, "British jobs for
British workers", was just a gift.

Suddenly you could see a Union Jack
on it, and you could see

the far right, in particular,
going into spasms of joy

over this. British jobs
for British workers -

I still feel uncomfortable
with it now.

For the first time in Britain,
a council has the BNP

as its second-biggest party.

I'll get on the bus here and I'm the
only white man sitting on the bus

sometimes. I 100% agree
with this man.

Give us back our country.

When I was first elected onto the
London Assembly, 2008, I sat

next to an elected member of the BNP

because over 5% of London voters
voted for what was basically

a neo-fascist party, in frustration
about immigration policy.

David Cameron was aware that
immigration was a huge issue,

and he wanted us to have a tough
policy that bore

down on the numbers.

Well, at the moment the net figure
is about 200,000, so that's

two million over ten years.
It's a large number.

We think it should be substantially
lower than that.

It's about 200,000 net now.

It was about 50,000 net
when Labour came to power.

Is that substantially lower?
Is that the sort of figure...

Well, that is substantially lower.

Obviously, that's a numerical fact,
and I think that the sorts

of numbers that you've talked
about in the past was actually

at a time when Britain found
it easier to integrate new migrants,

I think, that sort of figure.

But I will... when we get closer
to election, we may be able

to say more.

We had been trying to get
policy focus for some time,

that there needs to be a cap
and it needs to be 100,000.

We're full of people.

We really do not need many more.

The trains are absolutely packed
with people, as you can see.

The motorways are stuffed with cars.

There's housing, schools, hospitals.

It's just getting very difficult
to live.

And we had been saying there
must be an actual target

for Government departments
to work to.

I'd say the discussion about numbers
is entirely shallow.

And there were various pressure
groups in this country who thought

it was all a numbers game.

There's a Britain-is-full approach
to things, and I thought

it, in a pernicious way, actually,
sought to poison public debate.

Financial markets worldwide fall

following the emergency rescue
of a major American bank.

It was the biggest crash on the
London stock market

for more than 20 years. Over £90
billion were wiped off shares today.

The long-running crisis in
financial markets is having a bigger

and bigger impact on the
real economy.

It's been another day of losses
in the job market.

Unemployment looks set to rise
to 2.2 million by the end of 2009.

Economic insecurity is always
a good breeding ground

for anti-immigrant feeling.

If you have high levels
of unemployment and high levels

of immigration, that narrative
about people coming

and stealing our jobs is
more powerful.

I just feel that the Government
are giving more support

to the immigrants
rather than British people.

Well... I feel very betrayed,
to be honest.

A wave of wildcat
strikes sweeping parts of Britain

in support of protesters at the
Lindsey Oil Refinery

in Lincolnshire. There's anger at
the use of foreign labour

while British workers are
unemployed.

We will take action.

CROWD CHEERS

But these men are dismayed
and angry, especially

because the Government has made
public statements about British jobs

for British workers.

You don't have to go across
to Europe to bring people in

to do skilled jobs, when the skilled
men are here and they've been doing

it for years.

In the middle of the strike, the BNP
activist hands out leaflets

and pledges support.

We don't want the British
Nationalist Party on this protest.

But later, he's asked to leave,
by the men.

A union source said their aims
didn't match those of the workers'.

I was the Minister of State
for Borders and Immigration.

Despite the fact that we had
the global financial crisis,

immigration actually as a policy
area increased in its saliency

with the British public.

The instability and the uncertainty,
the fear that people had

about their economic prospects,

it was certainly a very,
very tough time.

Nicholas John Griffin
from the British National Party.

CROWD CHEERS

Someone has to stand up for the
majority indigenous population

of this country,
just to get a level playing field,

because racism in this country
overwhelmingly is directed

against people who look like me.

The leader of the BNP, Nick Griffin.

This was the night
he'd long dreamed of.

The night Nick Griffin walked
onstage to be treated like any other

politician, to debate with opponents
who used to refuse even to share

a platform with him.

There were huge crowds of very,
very angry people who thought

it was utterly inappropriate
that somebody like Nick Griffin,

who is a far-right r*cist,
was being given

the oxygen of publicity.

The immigration invasion, an act
of deliberate calculated genocide

against our ancient race and nation.

So, successive governments
are committing genocide

against their own people.
Is that your theory?

I'm afraid that's the case.

Yeah. That's your theory.
That's certainly how it looks.

From the ordinary
grassroots position,

when all the political elites
celebrate all the multicultural

diversity, an ever-open door... Do
you know the definition of genocide?

..for example. How appalling,
Mr Griffin,

that you use that word in that way.
APPLAUSE

What Nick Griffin said was
so frightening and unpleasant

for those of us from a migrant
background.

It was definitely a moment
to expose a far-right r*cist.

The protesters see him as being a
man with a National Front past,

and a political inheritance that
goes right back to the Nazis.

For every person who watched the
whole of the programme,

there were at least ten others
who thought, oh, that's interesting.

They must be part of mainstream
politics,

now they're being invited
on to Question Time.

The Queen has kindly agreed to the
dissolution of Parliament,

and a General Election will take
place on May 6th.

And this election is about big
choices.

Five more years of Gordon Brown,
or change with the Conservatives.

Our manifesto will hard-wire
fairness into British society.

Controlling how many people come
to this island is right up there

in the list of voters' concerns,
according to the polls.

I think what we should aim to do
is to go for a number that doesn't,

in the long term, doesn't add
still further to our population.

Now, roughly 100,000 Brits
leave every year.

Now we should be able roughly
within that to get immigration

down to a similar level.

I do think we need controls and we
need limits. A limit, so 100,000?

No, no. Well, I think what... where
I disagree with Andrew

is to say you can fix a limit and
say that's the limit.

I have to be careful to respect
people's confidences in this.

Um, so, um...

..I think what I'll say is, um,
in the run up to the next election,

we were in touch with the
Conservative Party in...

..in many forms, both
their officials

and more-senior people
in the party.

We would like to see net immigration
in the tens of thousands

rather than the hundreds
of thousands.

I don't think that's unrealistic.

That's the sort of figure
it was in the 1990s.

We were delighted.

That's exactly what we wanted
to see.

I don't think it'd be fair to say
the Conservatives pinched our idea,

but it would be fair to say
that it was originally our idea.

I wasn't talking about it in terms
of race or culture so much.

It was about numbers and pressure.

It's about turning up at primary
school and finding you've got

lots of new kids in your class
and it's overcrowded.

It's about going to the doctor's
surgery and finding there are many,

many more people trying to get
on the doctor's surgery list.

And if you talk about numbers
and pressure, you need to have some

idea about the sort of number
you're aiming for.

I was surprised
when the Conservative opposition

committed to it.

You know, it's a hostage to fortune,
but actually on an issue

as emotive as this, that was
clearly driving not just public

concern but public anger,
that that was a not just a foolish

thing to do, but a reckless
thing to do.

Early that morning, Jack Straw
and Gordon Brown had come

to my constituency, a marginal
constituency.

We'd held a debate in front
of the cameras.

It had gone very well.

We were celebrating over
a cup of tea

when the Prime Minister's car left,
saying that went really well.

We got back to the office
after canvassing, turned the news

on to see just down the road
in Rochdale, five miles away,

the... the Gillian Duffy...

It's six months,

it's six months... You can't say
anything about the immigrants

because you're saying that you're,
well, all these Eastern

Europeans what are coming in,
where are they flocking from?

So I was editing the Six and
Ten O'clock News

when Gordon Brown was hot-miked.

There was a very quick decision
at the BBC to use the material.

Gordon Brown calls a voter a bigoted
woman, a major embarrassment

on the campaign trail.

You're joking.

Because, I mean, how do you feel
about that?

Where was I a bigot?

Why has he come out with
it, with words like that?

He's going to lead this country

and he's calling an ordinary woman
who's just come up and asked him

questions what most people
would ask him...

For the person who is leading
the country to say that a person

who is raising issues about
immigration was a bigot,

just exploded.

Prime Minister, do you still think
Mrs Duffy's a bigot?

I wanted to come here and say
to Gillian, I was sorry, to say

that I'd made a mistake, but to also
say I understood the concerns

that she was bringing to me,

and I had simply misunderstood some
of the words that she used.

REPORTERS SHOUT QUESTIONS

It was so important, because it did
reveal a reality

that the Labour Government
had wanted hidden.

That that's what they really
thought

about people who were concerned
about immigration.

And I, others, had spent five
years in opposition arguing

that this is a real issue. This is a
real issue for real people.

Stop saying it's just Tory rhetoric.
It's not.

It is packed with them on all
the other council estates.

This is the only one in Rochdale
that isn't packed

with the immigrants.

There's rafts and rafts of them.

It's packed, Rochdale, and it's not
a point of being bigots.

Everybody should have their fair
share of them.

In the 2010 General Election,
we knew that immigration

was going to be a big issue.

But, you know, we'd had eight or
nine years

of very negative headlines,

perceptions that the Home
Office was not run well.

So against that backdrop,
the changes we'd made,

even though I felt we had a better
narrative, it was too little,

too late, and we knew we were... we'd
lost the public's trust

on immigration.

It's going to be a hung
Parliament, with the Conservatives

as the largest party.

Within the past hour,

Gordon Brown has said he intends
to stand down as Labour leader

and Prime Minister.

I aim to form a proper and full
coalition between the Conservatives

and the Liberal Democrats.

We have the chance of a five-year
government where we really can

grapple with the problems
the country faces.

So we were landed with this
objective, which the Conservatives

had put in their manifesto,
and which they then treated as hard

Government policy,
which the Liberal Democrats

fundamentally disagreed with.

It was unenforceable, because there
were certain things

we couldn't control, migration
from Europe,

and also if British people chose
to stay here, this actually pushed

up net immigration. It was absurd.

It's not something we could control.

I mean, we're not North Korea.

There were officials in the Home
Office, I discovered, who were quite

tough-minded about immigration,
but economists

around the place weren't.

They subscribed to the view
that immigration was good

for the economy.

I was chief economist at the Cabinet
Office and in Number 10,

and I wrote a memorandum
to David Cameron saying, um,

you will not hit the

tens-of-thousands target unless you
impose

severe restrictions on either
or both people coming in, skilled

workers or students, both
of whom, of course, we know

are very significantly economically
beneficial to the UK.

So you are either setting
yourself up to fail,

or you're going to be forced
into taking

economically damaging decisions.

They tried to argue against it,
but were seen off by David Cameron

and George Osborne, who said, look,
we've made this pledge,

we are going to stick to it.

Jonathan Portes is a very
intelligent man,

but he didn't really agree with
anything the Government was doing,

so he wasn't the first person I was
going to listen to, frankly.

I did get a note back from the Prime
Minister's private office, his chief

political adviser, saying, actually,
um, Damian Green has advised

the Prime Minister that
this is perfectly doable.

Here is how the numbers add up.

And he got these numbers
from Migration Watch.

And I looked at the numbers
and I immediately said, no,

these don't add up.
You've done them wrong.

You don't understand how the visa
system or the immigration

system really works.

No, I'm not going to
comment on Portes.

CLEARS THROAT

I have a very low opinion on him

and I'm not prepared to talk
about him.

I essentially got another note back
from the Prime Minister, saying

that he didn't want to know.

That is one of the reasons why
I left the Cabinet Office

not long after.

Well, Migration Watch undoubtedly
had a very significant influence on

certainly thinking in the Home
Office and with the Prime Minister.

And with core ministers,
they were very influential.

I thought Migration Watch were worth
listening to, because they brought

a lot of data and a lot of rigour
and some policy proposals.

We were in close contact
with the Home Office

at every level, actually.

We thought it was doable.

We had expected it to be done,
as they did too.

I remember in meetings
in the Cabinet Room, where Green

and his organisation, which were
constantly warning of the dangers

of high immigration levels,
were effectively treated as advisers

to the Government.

Ultimately, Government policy
was all decided by the Government,

by me and the Deputy Prime Minister
and the team.

But actually having a group
of people saying, here's some ideas

for how you can control
immigration better,

that was a good thing.

And I believe that that will mean
net migration to this country

will be in the order of tens
of thousands each year, not

the hundreds of thousands
every year that we've seen

over the last decade.

One of the aims of my Government
was to make sure our economy became

less dependent on immigration.

You know, while you've got five
million British people

of working age on out-of-work
benefits, you're never

going to have successful
immigration control.

So we did have a welfare reform
policy to get those people

back to work. We had a training and
skills policy.

So I don't accept that getting
net migration

to below 100,000 was impossible.

I think where it ran into difficulty

was with other Government
departments.

Every Government department had some
group of people that they said

were vital and they must have them.

We helped where we could on that.

Many of the Conservative Secretaries
of State were in principle

in agreement with this idea of
reducing net migration,

but in practice, they were looking
for ways to exempt

their own departments.

You know, the impact on social care,
for example, on medical

professionals, on business.

You know, there were people
right across Government

who were arguing for exemptions.

Any government is desperate
for economic growth.

A lot of that is going to come
from migration.

So you can see that tension,
that argument playing out,

sometimes in Cabinet.

David Cameron would not talk to me,

of course, about his relationships

with other ministers, but he clearly
was disappointed that progress

was not being made as he wished
it should be,

and as he was committed to.

David Cameron famously remarked once
that the only people in Government

who actually wanted to bring
immigration down were him,

Theresa and me.

Because, you know, that was our job.

They'd invested very heavily in
getting net immigration

below 100,000.

They were way, way off target.

I think there was an element
of panic.

I don't think there's an issue
on which public trust has broken

down more between two so-called
major parties

and the great British public, than
immigration, both legal and ill*gal.

Neither the Labour nor
the Conservative Parties want

the truth to get out, which is
that as part of the European Union,

we have a complete open door
to the whole of Eastern Europe,

and we cannot limit the numbers
that come here.

And my sole purpose was
if I could link in the minds

of the British people, immigration

with membership of the European
Union, then everything would change.

For years, politicians have promised
the public an

Australian-style points-based
system, and today, I will actually

deliver on those promises.

The immigration policy put in place
after Brexit, in my view,

was not the right one.

It was more about rhetoric
than it was about reality.

It was all about telling the British
public what they wanted to hear.

We will pass new laws to stop
small boats, making sure

that if you come to this country
illegally, you are detained

and swiftly removed.

We didn't need to be pushed
into this position.

We were taking it seriously.

But as long as the Prime Minister
refused to support me,

my hands were tied.

This was a crisis and a political
catastrophe.

What are the impacts of recent
changes to UK citizenship?