Test migrants for HIV and TB, say Tories

Migrants from outside Europe would face tests for HIV, TB and hepatitis under controls on immigration proposed by the Conservatives yesterday, during pre-election skirmishes. They also criticised Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, for advocating increased migration.

Under the Conservative proposals, the tests would be compulsory and those found to have TB would be denied entry. People with HIV or hepatitis would be dealt with case by case basis, the party said.

Tory officials say that the measures are aimed at safeguarding public health and preventing the NHS being exploited by health tourists. The position of asylum-seekers, who are offered health checks by the government, would not change.

Michael Howard, the Tory leader, said: "The British people deserve the best standards of public health. We need to control who is coming to Britain to ensure they are not a public health risk and to protect access to the NHS. It's plain common sense. And it's exactly what they do in New Zealand, Canada and Australia."

But Rhian Beynon, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said: "We would be highly concerned about the risk of such a scheme leading to discrimination. This is just another step in the awful auction over immigration in before the general election. We would like to see it stop because it is not just damaging the position of immigrants but the settled black and Asian population in Britain."

The Conservatives also attacked Mr Clarke after he called for an increase in economic migrants and asylum-seekers heading to Britain. The Home Secretary's comments in a question-and-answer session during Labour's spring conference in Gateshead came a week after the Government published its five-year plan for immigration and it appeared to contradict Tony Blair, who predicted numbers would fall.

Labour said only skilled migrants who can speak English fluently and pass a "Britishness" test would be allowed to settle permanently. Lower-skilled workers will be allowed to stay only for a fixed period.

Mr Clarke said he wanted Britain to be a place that offered sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. He added: "That's not only a moral duty and a legal duty, but something which is part of the essence of this country. We want more migration, more people coming to study and to work. We want more people coming to look for refuge."

The Home Secretary contrasted what he claimed was Labour's "balanced" approach to refugees with the Tories' "saloon-bar response" of processing asylum-seekers in offshore countries. But he conceded that voters wanted action on abuses of the system and the Government would be punished if it simply told people not to worry about the issue.

The Tories seized on Mr Clarke's comments and are likely to use them during campaigning for the general election expected on 5 May.

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "This undermines every claim that Labour made in its plans to be tough on immigration and asylum. The Home Secretary is clearly out of touch with what the majority of British people want; a firm, fair and controlled immigration policy."

But Labour said Mr Howard had already offered to take more refugees into Britain. Mr Clarke said: "This is a scurrilous attempt by the Tories to score cheap political points. The Tories are purposely mixing two separate issues of immigration and asylum." Immigration has become a theme of the pre-election skirmishing. Michael Howard, the Tory leader, asked Mr Blair last week at Prime Minister's question time whether the Government's proposal would lead to a fall in net immigration. Mr Blair replied: "The numbers probably will fall, yes, because it will be clear those people who are coming in either abusing the system or who aren't covered by the restrictions won't be able to settle."

¿ Downing Street yesterday defended Mr Clarke's proposals to keep British terror suspects under house arrest. It said "extreme measures" were needed to tackle the threat facing the country. Mr Clarke is expected to water down the plans, which have been attacked by MPs of all parties, civil rights groups and much of the legal profession.