Concern about immigration doubles in a year and is now as important to voters as the economy



Immigration came joint top with the economy in poll of public’s priorities



The proportion identifying it in their top priorities has nearly doubled



Number citing the economy as their main concern fell by 11% in a year

PM accused of complacency after saying numbers arriving from Romania and Bulgaria were 'reasonable'

Immigration is now the most important issue of concern to the British people, a poll has revealed.



It came joint top with the economy in an Ipsos MORI poll of the public’s priorities for the Government.



Strikingly, in a single year, the proportion identifying immigration in their top priorities to Ipsos MORI has nearly doubled.



In the same period, the number citing the economy as their main concern fell by 11 percentage points, as unemployment and growth have picked up.



Welcome: Labour's Keith Vaz greets one of the first Romanian immigrants to arrive in the UK on January 1

The poll is a double-edged sword for David Cameron. He will be boosted by confirmation that worries over the economy are declining.

At the same time, it will embolden both his backbench opponents, who want much tougher action to reduce migrant numbers, and Ukip.



Earlier this week the Prime Minister was accused of complacency over immigration after he said the numbers arriving from Romania and Bulgaria were ‘reasonable’.



It later became clear that Mr Cameron has no idea how many are coming into the country because official figures will not be available until May.



The poll found that 41 per cent of those questioned raised immigration or race relations in their first two answers when asked: ‘What do you see as the most important issues facing Britain today?’ The economy was raised by the same proportion.



In the past 12 months, the number citing the economy has fallen by 11 points, from 52 per cent. Immigration, by contrast, has risen from 22 per cent to 41 per cent.



It is the first time since 2008 that immigration has come out on top, Ipsos MORI said. The economy has remained at the top since then.



Home secretary Theresa May warned Downing Street that amending the rules could lead to a huge number of appeals being logged at the European Court of Human Rights

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: ‘This is a most remarkable outcome. At last people feel free to give their true opinion about the impact of mass immigration on this country.’



The poll emerged as Mr Cameron was engaged in last-minute negotiations with rebel Conservative MPs demanding changes to the Immigration Bill when it returns to the House of Commons tomorrow.



Backbencher Nigel Mills is calling for rules restricting access to British jobs for workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which expired in January, to be restored.



Last night, government whips were said to be backing a compromise set of amendments proposed by another Tory backbencher, Stephen Phillips – which would give a vague duty to the Home Secretary to assess whether EU immigration is excessive in future.



A further rebel amendment, proposed by Tory MP Dominic Raab, would beef up laws on booting out foreign criminals. Last night, a Home Office memo blew a hole in the Government’s case for blocking his amendment.



Ministers have been resisting the amendment, which would make it all but impossible for overseas convicts to claim they have a right to a ‘family life’ in the UK.



They have insisted that the rules would flout the European Convention on Human Rights because they do not include sufficient safeguards.



Home Secretary Theresa May warned Downing Street last March that it could lead to a huge number of appeals being logged at the European Court of Human Rights.



She predicted the court could respond by issuing ‘a Rule 39 injunction’, which would halt up to 4,000 deportations a year for several years while all the appeals were heard.



But a memo prepared by the Home Office’s own officials, seen by the Mail, states that this is not the case. Officials working on the Bill say: ‘We do not expect interim measures under Rule 39 to be issued routinely, if at all.’



In the wake of her warning, Mr Raab failed last year in his attempt to get the amendment passed.

Last night, he said: ‘I welcome the fact that the earlier legal objections have been overcome. I hope this clears the way for the Government to accept this practical, common sense amendment, which will stop killers, rapists and drug dealers from running rings around our border controls.’



But the amendments face being defeated by being ‘talked out’. There are only around four hours set aside tomorrow to debate the Bill, including a raft of Home Office amendments.



A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We are already passing legislation in the Bill to ensure judges don’t regard the right to a family life as an absolute and unqualified one.



‘Those who commit serious crimes have no place in Britain and we are determined to see more of them kicked out of the country.’

Our rights must trump those of foreign criminals

Commentary by dominic raab Conservative MP for Esher and Walton





Tory MP Dominic Raab, proposed new legislation to beef up laws on booting out foreign criminals

Back in 2008, a constituent of mine called Bishal Gurung was celebrating the Nepalese new year in London.



Well-liked locally, he worked as a waiter in Esher and was the son of a long-serving corporal in the Gurkhas.



In what the trial judge called an ‘unprovoked and senseless episode’, Bishal was chased by a gang of around a dozen men, beaten to the ground and kicked remorselessly.



Then his body was thrown into the Thames, where it was discovered two weeks later.



Two of the perpetrators were jailed for the crime, including the ringleader, a Nepalese man named Rocky Gurung (unrelated to his victim) who received a three-year sentence for manslaughter.



Bishal’s family were distraught at the soft sentences, but his sister Karuna said: ‘If the killers were deported then at least his family would know a little of the pain we endured.’



Meanwhile, Bishal’s uncle lamented: ‘Those people should be deported. They have been given the chance here and have disrespected the British people’s kindness.’



Instead, the immigration tribunal decided that Rocky Gurung’s family ties in the UK were more important than the public interest – let alone that of the victims’ family – in deporting him to Nepal, even though he was an adult with no wife, partner or children.



And the ‘family life’ here that was so sacrosanct that he couldn’t be thrown out of Britain? He lived with his parents and had relatives here.



Sadly, Bishal’s isn’t an isolated case: it’s routine. In 2011, serial offender Asim Parris – a violent drug dealer – talked his way out of deportation back to Trinidad.



He relied on his right to family life, the court swallowing the line that he was ‘devoted’ to his young daughter. In fact, his partner left him five weeks after the child was born because he was so violent.



He attacked her again and kidnapped the child. When police later caught up with him, he fled, leaving the pram standing unguarded in the street.



Since then, he had never paid maintenance, and only took an interest in the girl when his lawyers explained that her existence could help him beat his deportation order. So much for paternal devotion.



It is cases like these, and so many others like them, that have convinced me the single biggest injustice thrown up by our skewed human rights laws is the fiasco of hundreds of nasty criminals, jailed for their crimes, claiming spurious family and social ties to trump the public interest in deporting them.



Tomorrow, when the Government’s Immigration Bill returns to the Commons, MPs have a chance to deal with this problem through robust legislation that stops killers, rapists and drug dealers running rings round our border controls – and restores some common sense to the British justice system.



Romanian workers board a coach to Britain after transitional controls were lifted at the beginning of this month

Any right-thinking person must see that this obscene abuse of human rights has to stop. That’s why, having met Bishal Gurung’s family and heard how much they were suffering, I decided we must change the law.



The right to a family life – enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – has become the number one way in which dangerous foreign criminals avoid being sent home at the end of their sentence.



Of the hundreds of successful human rights challenges each year, 89 per cent are solely based on Article 8.



The situation is only likely to get worse, as the judges – in immigration tribunals and at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg – shift the goalposts still further.



In two recent cases, the UK court acknowledged the ability of foreign nationals to claim Article 8 in certain circumstances to avoid deportation – so they can receive care on the NHS. If that continues, Britain risks becoming a magnet for health tourism.



The root cause of the problem is not the European Convention. Article 8 spells out qualifications a government can make to the right to family life, including where necessary for national security, public safety, preventing disorder or crime, or to protect others.



Yet UK and Strasbourg judges have run roughshod over the intentions of the post-war architects of the Convention – and the UK Government that signed it.



David Cameron was accused of complacency over immigration from Romania and Bulgaria after claiming it was running at a 'reasonable level'

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, recognises the problem. In 2012, the Government changed the guidelines for immigration tribunals. But, predictably, the judges said Parliament must change the law if it wants to steel the deportation system against these claims.



The Government’s new Immigration Bill takes a step in the right direction. However, because it leaves the judges with discretion on how to balance the public interest in deportation with the right to a family life, it risks turning out to be a damp squib.



So I have tabled a clear and robust amendment requiring judges to approve the deportation of foreign criminals jailed for a year or more, unless they face a risk of being tortured or murdered on return.



It will, at a stroke, cut out the Article 8 challenges. No ifs, no buts. It will rebalance the system in favour of the victim, and help restore public confidence.



Hand-wringing human rights campaigners will claim it’s unfair on partners and children, separated as a result of a criminal’s deportation.



Yet, the reality is these criminals are often a danger to their families. At some point the interests of the victims and the public in removing dangerous criminals must count for something.



Those who believe my proposals are illiberal should understand that this is not a Right-wing measure.



My amendment is backed by more than a hundred MPs from three parties – including five former Labour ministers, one of whom is former home secretary David Blunkett.



It’s not a buck-passing exercise in blaming judges either: a string of senior UK judges have recently criticised our human rights laws.



Indeed, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, expressed alarm at the current ‘democratic deficit’, calling for an overhaul of the Human Rights Act, while Lord Sumption at the Supreme Court likens the impact of our creeping human rights law to the decay of Athens.



That’s why it is right and proper for MPs to wrest democratic control back from the courts.



As the Conservatives approach the 2015 election, it is vital we make sure we have kept our promises.



We’ve talked about the Article 8 problem for three years.

