Blunkett next in line?

Byline: By Paul Linford 

Such is the degree of controversy now surrounding the immigration system in Britain it is a subject of immense concern. As the doyen of the Parliamentary Lobby, Sun political editor Trevor Kavanagh said this week: "Illegal immigration is the number one issue at every pub and dinner table in the land."

It has already claimed the scalp of the minister in charge of the system, Beverley Hughes, and could easily lead to more resignations as the full extent of the chaos becomes clearer.

Even more worryingly for Premier Tony Blair, it threatens to become the single hottest issue at next year's General Election, forcing Labour to fight on what has always been traditionally Tory ground. Actually, the rather glib assumption that widespread immigration into Britain does not affect the North-East is probably the first idea that needs to be challenged.

Okay, so it doesn't affect the region in anything like the way that the British National Party has tried to claim, namely that places like Sunderland are being "swamped" by asylum seekers.

No, its impact is much more subtle, in that it is both a symptom and a cause of the economic imbalances that underlie most of the region's problems.

In fact, if economic migrants did start to arrive in the North-East in large numbers, it would probably be a good sign, in that it would demonstrate that we, like London, had achieved full employment. The facts of the matter are that immigrants - both legal and illegal - are attracted to London and the South-East precisely because its economy is booming.

But just as inward migration to London from other parts of the UK threatens to exacerbate regional disparities, so too does economic migration from other countries. If, for instance, the capital is expected to sustain an influx of around 150,000 East Europeans over the next few years, it will mean fresh demands on its infrastructure and public services. That, in turn, will further draw resources away from other less over-heated parts of the economy such as our own region.

What all of this demonstrates is that immigration, once primarily a social order issue, has now become by and large an economic issue.

But if there is an economic disparities argument against immigration, it has to be balanced against the fact that the labour market in the South probably could not function without it.

In London and the South-East, immigrants are not "pinching" the jobs of the indigenous population as the likes of the BNP have long falsely claimed.

They are actually doing many of the kind of menial yet vital jobs - most notably in the NHS - that the indigenous population can now afford to turn down.

Faced with an issue of such immense complexity, the departure of the hapless Ms Hughes on Thursday is probably the least of Mr Blair's problems.

The 54-year-old "Blair babe" claimed she merely forgot about the letter sent to her in March 2003 by her colleague Bob Ainsworth, now Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong's loyal deputy. In that letter, Mr Ainsworth revealed UK solicitors were providing pro-forma business plans to facilitate the entry of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants into Britain.

It is frankly incredible that, when a year later, the British Consul in Bucharest raised almost identical concerns, it did not cause some small flicker somewhere in the recesses of her memory. Accepting that Ms Hughes's version of events is true surely belies all the claims that have been made about her alleged "competence." But the real worry for Mr Blair is that this affair might ultimately cost him one of his closest political allies, Home Secretary David Blunkett.

Whenever people talk about this Government, the attention is usually and understandably on Mr Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown.

It is hardly surprising given that Mr Blair is most successful election-winner in Labour's history and Mr Brown probably the greatest strategic thinker on the left since Anthony Crosland.

But for all their achievements as politicians, Blair and Brown are not the two most remarkable men in this Labour administration.

That accolade belongs to Mr Blunkett and John Prescott - two brave men from humble backgrounds who overcame extraordinary odds to occupy two of the highest offices in the land.

The charge against Mr Blunkett is not that he misled anyone, but that he has quite simply lost control of a department which, on the immigration issue, appears all at sea.

If, as is entirely possible, the inquiry being carried out by Ken Sutton uncovers further breakdowns in the system, Mr Blunkett's position could become perilous indeed.

Worse still for Mr Blair would be to allow the Tories to fight an "asylum election" in which they pose as patriotic defenders of our shores while painting Labour as hobbled by political correctness.

He would particularly hate it because it would undo all his attempts to get away from the old left-right caricatures and reposition his party as "tough" on law and order issues.

It follows that Mr Blair will now have to ensure his Government gets tough on immigration in order to neutralise the issue well before next May. But as on so many issues, Mr Blair runs the risk that, in seeking to outflank the Tories, he is merely dancing to their tune.