Population Growth: Impact of Immigration

Debate between Ian Paisley and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It is great to be able to participate in this debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on introducing it.

I will concentrate on the issue of the population, because that is the core issue we have got to address. In 1990, which is the base date for all our policies relating to net zero and so-called climate change, the population then was about 20% less than it is now. There has been a 20% increase in population since then, yet all our net zero targets are related to absolute figures, rather than to carbon dioxide emissions per head of population. That is a dimension to the debate that I do not think we have sufficiently addressed.

When the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I have the privilege of serving, was asking an environment Minister the other day what is being taken into account in determining the impact of rising population on the ability of the Government to deliver on their net zero targets, there was a big gasp—“Oh, well, there is no briefing on that.” He did not have a clue. All that happened was that the Minister resorted to talking about heat pumps. He seemed to think that that was the answer to the question, which I raised. Yet we know that heat pumps are a subsidiary issue.

The Government keep setting targets for almost everything under the sun. Yesterday, I visited a garden centre and found that the Government are prescribing the amount of peat that we can have in a grow bag. They are prescribing that, but they have no policy whatever on the number of people we think it is right to have in our country.

I visited Hungary with some colleagues a few weeks back. Hungary does have a strong population policy. The Prime Minister there, who recently got re-elected with a two-thirds majority in Parliament, has the support of his people in recognising that one can limit immigration and at the same time grow one’s population and grow one’s economy.

On the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made about growth in the economy, I think that is one of the most destructive policies that this Government are adopting. They are talking about GDP growth as being a good thing, but what should really count is GDP growth per person—per capita—and if you look at the figures, Mr Paisley, you will see that, in effect, over the last 10 years GDP per head of population has been static. We have not had that growth, so when people feel that they have not shared in the growth, the answer is no, they have not, because to a large extent the growth is actually being generated just by having more people in the country. The Government can brag about the fact that we have higher growth than Germany, but actually that growth is a mirage in terms of the economy, because it is not growth per head of population; it is the overall growth created by just bringing more people into the country, so this is an overdue but very timely debate.

The contribution that net migration makes to population growth is important, but let us first of all get a policy on our population. We have not had a population policy in this country. Why do not Ministers go off and see what is being done in Hungary, which is addressing this problem in a really constructive way? It is incentivising the home-grown population to grow their families, while at the same time having tight control over migration from outside, and encouraging people to develop their skills instead of allowing employers to take the easy shortcut of bringing in people who are already trained from overseas, thereby denuding those economies of their skillsets. There is a lot to be done, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Minister, in responding to this debate, will be able to promise that we will introduce a population policy. I hope he will.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

The debate will finish at 5.55 on the dot.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Can the Minister set out what the Government believe the right target is for the population of this country?

Eurozone Crisis

Debate between Ian Paisley and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We were told that the IMF would help Ireland and that we could help Ireland and influence its economic policy through the IMF. We were also told that we needed to give Ireland a £3 billion loan so that we could have even more influence, but I do not think that it is written in any agreement that to have yet more influence we need to reduce the interest below the rate agreed at the outset. The fact that the Irish have drawn down on the loan shows that they do not look a gift horse in the mouth. They realise that this is a great opportunity.

Let us consider the opportunities in Ireland. I got my assistant to research the interest rates available to small businesses in Ireland at the moment, so this information is from yesterday. Allied Irish Banks is offering loans of up to €100,000 to small businesses at a “competitive rate” of 4.4% variable. New and early-stage businesses under three years old can get that money. Now, I do not know what it is like for my hon. Friends, but in my constituency it is almost impossible for businesses to get a loan from the bank at a rate of 4.4%, if they can get one at all. We know that Allied Irish Banks is the beneficiary of a £3.5 billion bail-out. We are giving Ireland money that it is using to subsidise its banks, which in turn are subsidising its small businesses to compete unfavourably against ours.

[Ian Paisley]

I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that it is actually far worse? The Irish state bank, the National Asset Management Agency, holds £14 billion of property in this city, which it can dispose of any time it wants and put the money back into its own national coffers. Is it not time that we had a Select Committee inquiry into NAMA’s activities in the United Kingdom jurisdiction?

[Mr Chope]

That sounds to me like a good point. People should start selling their assets. That is what families must do if they get into difficulties. We have to think about selling assets, which is what countries in debt should be doing.

Another example is the Bank of Ireland, which received €5.2 billion in the banking bail-out, and which is offering interest rates of 5.24%. More than half of all loan decisions are made on the spot and 87% of applications are approved. Would that we had similar arrangements in the United Kingdom. By comparison, HSBC was offering small business loans yesterday with a starting interest rate of 7.9%, which is obviously only for the most favoured customers.

Can the Government explain why we are reducing the rate of interest on the Irish loan? When the Bill went through the House, I voted against it, but it passed on the basis that we would make a significant profit on the interest. Now that the Irish are drawing down on the loan, surely we should know what the interest rate is. Is there any other organisation that can go to the bank and get a loan while the bank manager says, “Don’t worry, we’ll agree the interest rate later”? It seems reckless in the extreme.

My final point deals with the treaty establishing the European stability mechanism. Most people do not realise that the European stability mechanism is a new international financial institution that will have international immunity, and that it will be funded by the 17 members of the European Union. What will Ireland pay? Its subscription will be €11.145 billion, which is about £10 billion. Another way of putting it is that we are lending money to Ireland so that Ireland can, in turn, pay its subscription to the European stability mechanism. It is a farce.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Christopher Chope

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that these deliberations should be conducted by the commission itself, however, rather than by the Government, and I do not want the Government to be agonising over whether there should be a commission and, if so, who will serve on it. I do not think my hon. Friend and I are very far apart, as I believe the commission must be given the maximum amount of time to go into the details of this topic. However, if we are going to get this sorted out before the end of this fixed-term Parliament, why have we not got on with it already? What is the reason for the delay? It seems to me that the justifications for delay put forward thus far are specious in the extreme, and we have learned from experience that if a Government have not got a proper explanation for delay, the reason is usually that they intended to delay matters, as is the case now.

[Ian Paisley]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that he cannot have both sides of the argument? He cannot claim that this is a very complex and complicated issue to resolve, but also say, “But here’s an easy way to get it sorted out.” Does he not recognise that there are two ways to skin this rat, as it were, and that the commission offered today is perhaps one of those ways?

[Mr Chope]

I think the hon. Gentleman is on the same side as I am on that, because I am saying not that this is an easy issue to sort out, but that the coalition Government agreed to set up a commission to consider it, yet until the commission is set up it cannot start considering it. I cannot understand why the commission has not yet been set up and why my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give a commitment that it will be set up sooner rather than later. Instead, he just talks vaguely about something happening towards the end of this year. That will be one and a half years into this Parliament, and it would mean that if the commission were to come up with legislative proposals, the chances of being able to get them through in this Parliament would be significantly reduced unless the commission concertinaed its work into a very short space of time.

That is what leads me to conclude—I think any rational observer would conclude this—that the Government have not got their heart in this. They are hopelessly split between the Liberal Democrat agenda and the Conservative party agenda, which was clearly set out in our manifesto. We compromised on that in the coalition agreement, and we have given the tools whereby that compromise might be taken forward, namely the setting up of the commission, to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. I do not think he has got his heart in trying to achieve any progress on this matter, however. I sympathise enormously with the Minister, but I hope that by getting the Bill into Committee we will be able to maintain the pressure. That is why I support the Bill.

Sustainable Livestock Bill

Debate between Ian Paisley and Christopher Chope

Friday 12th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend rightly brings a cautionary tale to bear on this. My parents used to keep two pigs—one was called Humpty, and the other Dumpty. We used to feed them all the food waste, and there was never an outbreak of foot and mouth disease as a result. Those pigs were very healthy, and, because it was a time of rationing, when they were slaughtered we did not keep all the meat ourselves, but shared it among the people in a sort of collectivist action.

[Ian Paisley]

Do you think they’d swallow your speech?

[Mr Chope]

I was pausing to take breath, so I failed to hear what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I am sure that it was very witty and pertinent, and I look forward to reading it in the Official Report in due course.

My next point is one that my hon. Friend the Minister made. It is about the need to concentrate on putting resources where they can really deliver some good. Effectively, what he was saying was that if the Bill was to pass into law and these onerous duties were imposed on him, his Department would have to transfer resources from where they are being deployed at the moment to other areas. That would be a mistake. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State have a grip on the best allocation of resources within their Department to meet the Government’s policy objectives. If they were diverted from doing that by what is contained in the Bill, that would be a matter of regret.

My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the £2.9 billion that the Government are giving to deal with global climate change. That is a far more focused approach than that adopted by the Bill’s promoter, and it is regrettable that he did not refer to it in his opening speech. He might have said, “I respect and applaud the fact that the Government are doing so much in these areas, and this Bill is, in many respects, designed to encourage them to go further.” However, the Government do not need to be encouraged to go any further—they are doing more than sufficient with that £2.9 billion, which is, in anybody’s language, a significant sum of money.

My hon. Friend made an important point that is perhaps sometimes forgotten by those of us who mow our grass too regularly during the growing season—that grassland is itself a reservoir of potential carbon emissions. That introduces yet another set of conundrums and dilemmas in relation to promoting healthy livestock production while ensuring that we do not increase CO₂ or CO₂-equivalent emissions.

One part of my hon. Friend’s speech that he glossed over rather too quickly for my liking concerned clause 1(3), which says:

“The Secretary of State must ensure that policies in relation to negotiations and other activities at international level, including at the European Union, are consistent with sections 1(1) and 1(2)”

of the Bill as enacted. If my hon. Friend had been perfectly frank with the House, he would have said that there is no way that that is ever going to happen unless we withdraw from the European Community.