Alec Shelbrooke
Main Page: Alec Shelbrooke (Conservative - Elmet and Rothwell)
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions the creation of 1.2 million private sector jobs. Does he agree that that is probably why, it has now been revealed, that the country avoided a double-dip recession?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth reflecting on the Government’s record on jobs. The Opposition do not like to talk about it, but the truth is that, despite the difficult circumstances—despite the Government having no money because we must pay down the deficit, and despite not having the growth that we would like in the world, European or UK economies—we have created jobs. That is a very good record.
Mr Davey
The interesting thing is that that definition has two parts: it tries to measure overall fuel poverty in terms of energy efficiency; and, most importantly—it has not been done before—it looks at the depth of fuel poverty. If we consider not just fuel poverty statistics, but income poverty statistics too, we should be most concerned about those in poverty year in, year out—the grinding fuel and income poverty. Unless we have measures that show what is happening to deep fuel poverty and allow us to attack it, we will not be able to deal with fuel poverty. Our measures are more effective and more sophisticated than anything produced by the Labour party.
We must ensure that business energy costs are, through climate change policies, similar across the EU and the globe. One measure that the UK and the EU have pushed is the European carbon market, which is often known as the EU ETS. It is important that the EU ETS carbon price provides incentives and signals to the markets for investment in low carbon, and that it creates a level playing field for industries across the EU. I regret that the vote in the European Parliament on the back-loading proposals was lost by 19 votes. The proposals were part of the reform of the EU ETS. We need to do a lot better. I hope that the ENVI Committee in the European Parliament can come forward with another package so that we can reform the carbon market. That is in everyone’s interest, not just on climate change, but to ensure that we have competitive industries on a level playing field across the European Union.
I want to end by talking briefly about climate change. Some will say that we should put off action on climate change until we get to better financial times, and some will say that we should not be looking at this issue at the moment given our financial and economic problems. I reject those arguments completely. The science of climate change is unequivocal: we have to act now and we should have acted before. That is why we need to reform the EU ETS. It is about not just the back-loading proposals, but structural reform. I am working with fellow EU Ministers and have set up a like-minded group—the Green Growth group—to try to build a coalition at the European Council, so that we can achieve these vital reforms on climate change.
There has been a big debate during the passage of the Energy Bill—a carry-over Bill in the Queen’s Speech—on the proposal for a decarbonisation target, which has a role to play in tackling climate change. Of the general election manifestos from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Labour party and even the Green party, guess how many mentioned a decarbonisation target for the power sector? Not a single one. When we published the draft Energy Bill in May 2012, it did not contain a decarbonisation target, and there was no decarbonisation target promised in the coalition agreement. Now we have one in the Bill. The Government have looked at the issue and put the target in the Bill. We are the first Government ever to do that, and it is a very strong move. We are an early mover. The Opposition want to carp at one or two details, but I am afraid that they fail to acknowledge what we have done and what we have delivered.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether or not people are sceptical about climate change, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and carbon is equally as important to energy security as it is to climate change? This policy is very important in making sure that we have energy security in this country.
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I believe that the climate change science is unambiguous and that we have to act on that basis, but he is absolutely right: there are other reasons to invest in low carbon and energy efficiency. It is important that this country takes a lead on climate change by working with EU colleagues to reform the EU ETS and the European carbon market, by including the decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill, which we have done, and by taking various other measures. Other countries are looking at our measures on electricity market reform and our green deal because they believe that we are leading the way.
All those measures are critical in the run-up to 2015, which is when the climate change talks will take place in France, probably in Paris. During the climate change talks in Durban in 2011 the world agreed to sign a legally binding global treaty at the climate change talks in 2015. This will be a critical moment in the global battle against climate change. We need to ensure that our international legal obligations apply to everyone in the world, not just to Europe or the Kyoto protocol nations. Having agreed in Durban to do that in 2015, we now have to prepare the way to make it a success. Our work here and with the EU is critical because it will enable us to sign a treaty in 2015.
Whether we are trying to keep down costs for people or creating jobs, the package of measures introduced by the Government—not just my Department or the Department for Communities and Local Government, overseen by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—are focused on helping people in our country. On the longer-term challenges, we have rejected short-term fixes and the siren calls of vested interests. If we are interested in building a new and sustainable economy, we must make it a low-carbon economy and consider the long-term challenges.
I am grateful to the Opposition for how they have debated energy policy over recent months, particularly on the Energy Bill. I have seen a desire to build a consensus, which is really important, because investment to tackle our energy challenges and climate change are, by their very nature, long term, and the investment framework that one builds needs to span not just one Parliament or one Government, but several Parliaments and Governments into the foreseeable future. Building a consensus is critical for successful policies that are as cheap and effective as possible. I look forward to hearing what the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has to say. I am sure that she wants to add to that consensus.
Mr Blunkett
This talk of search parties is, frankly, risible. The fact was that we had a booming economy with enormous growth and we needed people to fill those jobs. We needed them to do so legally, rather than illegally. At the moment, however, illegal migration is growing and the message we are sending out, particularly to graduate and postgraduate students, is entirely wrong. Of course there is an issue about integration and about protecting people, but we need a sensible, rational dialogue, rather than one that fosters and engenders fear.
What about the welfare state? In 2005, we set out our principles for welfare reform. Of course, earned entitlement is crucial. We all accept that work is the best form of welfare, but turning those who are struggling on welfare into victims and suggesting that they are responsible for the dilemmas that we face in these times of austerity is frankly unacceptable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned the £1,700 cut in average earnings, but this Government have also frozen child benefit and cut tax credits. In-work benefits have also been cut, creating a disincentive rather than an incentive to work. Goodness knows what is going to happen when universal credit comes in later this year.
Above all, the Government are punishing people who are already struggling. The bedroom tax is the most iniquitous of the changes that the Government have brought in—[Hon. Members: “It’s not a tax.”] Does someone want me to give way?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) cannot opportunistically spring up in that way. He is showing a considerable discourtesy to the House. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) should proceed unhindered with his speech.
Jim Dowd
A few.
My constituent resented the suggestions that were being made about the referendum, because no one had put the idea to the electorate at the last election. I expect the issue to be a key part of the next general election campaign, and I think that we should offer people a referendum on it.
Labour is the only party that has ever given people in this country a referendum. Back in 1975, under the Wilson Government, the referendum was on whether we accepted the revised terms under which we would remain in what was then the European Economic Community. Scottish and Welsh devolution, the forming of the Greater London Authority, the direct election of a Mayor of London and elected mayors in cities across the country have all spawned referendums, and all of them were instituted by a Labour Government. The closest that a Conservative Government have ever got was being forced into a referendum on electoral reform and the alternative vote by the terms of the coalition agreement.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It was kind of you, Mr. Speaker, to allow a segment of today’s debate to those of us who were concerned about the Opposition’s decision not to choose foreign affairs, defence or, indeed, Europe as the subject of one of the themed days of debate on the Queen’s Speech, so that we could refer to some of those matters. I suppose that I ought to get the words “cost of living” into my speech from time to time, and I shall endeavour to do so, but I hope that if I fail, they will be taken as read.
Although the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and I serve closely together on the Intelligence and Security Committee, we are not best known for agreeing on issues such as the future of the European Union or that of the Trident nuclear deterrent. On one issue, however, we find ourselves in close agreement, and that is the question of whether or not we should arm the rebels in Syria, or become militarily involved in the civil war in other ways.
Dr Lewis
I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend’s view is quite widely shared on the Back Benches, at least on this side of the House, and, I suspect, on the other side as well.
It is not a matter of wanting to do something less than we might in terms of humanitarian intervention. I certainly supported humanitarian military intervention in Sierra Leone, and I was one of the first to call for military intervention to topple Miloševic. I have supported military action in other theatres, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and I even supported such action—albeit with considerable reluctance—in the case of Libya, given Gaddafi’s explicit threat to the citizens of Benghazi. We must, however, consider two aspects when thinking about undertaking military intervention. One is the humanitarian consideration, but the other is the question of who will take over if that military intervention is successful. What concerns me is the possibility that the people who take over will become dominated by a group allied to al-Qaeda who are even worse than the Assad regime—and that is saying something.
My mind goes back to the speech made by Tony Blair as Prime Minister in the run-up to the Iraq war. What did he say that so swayed the House in favour of intervention? He said that his nightmare was the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of al-Qaeda. We now know that either there were no weapons of mass destruction, or, if there were chemical or biological weapons, they were not there by the time the allied forces went in.
In this case, however, we know that there are weapons of mass destruction—chemical weapons; a big stockpile of nerve gas—in Syria. What the Foreign Secretary has admitted at the Dispatch Box, repeatedly, is that there are, to use his own estimate, several thousand al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting alongside the Syrian opposition. I have raised the question at least five times since last September, and I have had five answers, none of which has satisfied me on the point. The point is this: how do we prevent that stock of deadly chemical weapons, which in the hands of Assad and his regime poses no threat to the west, from falling into the hands of al-Qaeda-linked militants, who would undoubtedly use them against the west, with terribly adverse effects on our cost of living and on our being able to stay alive?
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Carla del Ponte may be right, because it certainly does not make sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons—the one thing that would cause the west to intervene and overthrow him. If he did use them, why use them in such small quantities that they could not have a decisive effect? If the intent was to intimidate the opposition, why deny vehemently, as the Assad regime does, that it has used them? It does not make sense.
Alec Shelbrooke
What would be the direct effect on the cost of living in this country if an al-Qaeda-led Government in Syria got together with the Shi’a-led Government in Iran and took a direct look at the democracy in Iraq, which is diametrically opposed to their beliefs?
Dr Lewis
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in his implication that there would have to be a huge uplift in public expenditure on all forms of counter-terrorist techniques, and there would undoubtedly be a deleterious effect on the freedoms of peoples in this country, which would have to be restricted considerably if we found ourselves under attack from deadly chemical weapons in the hands of an extremist group allied to our enemies.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) quoted Marx, without attributing the words to him, when he said that the spectre of communism is haunting Europe. I am put in mind of a quotation attributed to Lenin:
“The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
We would have to be out of our minds to assist in the overthrow of one shocking regime and the coming into place instead of a regime that was equally shocking and atrocious but hostile to us and armed with chemical weapons.
Ian Paisley
Not at the moment, but I will shortly.
A disaster is coming to our farming community that will dramatically affect the cost of living through the rising cost of food. We have had one of the harshest winters ever. That is affecting, and will affect, the price of foodstuffs to feed our cattle and our sheep in the countryside. If next winter is equally harsh, I predict that this time next year the cost of food could be as much as double what it is this year. A bale of hay to feed cattle can cost as much as £60 in Northern Ireland—almost triple last year’s price. That will have a knock-on effect on the cost of living of ordinary households up and down the United Kingdom because it will affect how much a person can purchase to feed their family. The Government had better be warned about this now so that they can try to address the needs of the farming community across this country.
The impact of the cost of living in our rural communities is leading to an increase in suicide. For example, there was a very saddening episode last week in the Republic of Ireland, in County Monaghan, where a farmer shot 40 of his livestock because he could no longer afford to feed them, and then turned the gun on himself. This is a diabolical situation that is starting to affect our economy and will see the price of food increase.
I want to deal briefly with fags. Over the past few days people have talked about the impact of not having something in the Queen’s Speech. I want to commend the Government for taking a stand by not including measures on plain packaging, because that would have driven people out of employment, and not only in Northern Ireland; it would have affected shopkeepers up and down the United Kingdom and destroyed people’s opportunity to make a living.
In addition, it is a giant con trick. I am a non-smoker and I have four children who I never want to see smoking. If I thought for one moment that plain packaging would stop them smoking, I would have been in favour of it years ago. Indeed, the Labour party had the chance to introduce this measure in 2008 and did not do so. I am glad that 18 members of the Labour party signed my open letter to Her Majesty’s Government to support my campaign to stop plain packaging because of the impact it would have on smuggling, on counterfeit trade, and on all sorts of other aspects that would not affect the health of the nation in any way.
Alec Shelbrooke
As a reformed smoker, perhaps it would be helpful if I told the hon. Gentleman that the branding of cigarettes did not make me start smoking. Smoking became an addiction and unfortunately I got hooked, but what was on the packet had nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Ian Paisley
Let me say on this very important issue that I was delighted that 18 members of the Labour party signed my open letter to the Government, as did a former Labour Cabinet Minister, the current Chairman of a Select Committee, and three other former Ministers of the Crown. They did so because they were concerned about the impact that the introduction of plain packaging would have on crime, including smuggling and counterfeiting. It would drive young people—over 18-year-olds—to smoke the illicit cigarettes that are smuggled over a country’s borders. I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a stand on this. Very few people have been prepared to stand up to encourage and defend them, but I certainly will.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
May I turn to the comments made earlier about our energy policy by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey)? That policy will have an impact on the cost of living for all householders and anyone who buys manufactured goods. I do not accept his premise that the science on climate change, on which our energy policies are based, is settled.
The theory is pretty simple: ever since we started industrialising at the end of the 1700s, we started pouring CO2 into the atmosphere. As a result, the temperature across the world has warmed up and we must do something about it—that is the basic theory our energy policy follows. There are various flaws in that argument. The earth has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling. Coincidentally, at a time when we started to industrialise, we were coming out of a very cool period—a time referred to as a little ice age—when even the Thames used to freeze over. What is the total increase in temperature on which we are basing our policies and fears about climate change? According to all the statistics, it is just 0.7° C, yet some of that is clearly due to the fact that the earth was coming out of that cool period. Nobody can answer this simple question: how much of that 0.7° C is not down to CO2, but down to the natural warming that would have taken place anyway?
Then there is a problem with correlating CO2 levels with temperature increases in the past 300 years or so, because there is no straight line between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures going up. Between 1940 and 1970, temperatures were going down, and that was at a time when we were putting enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nobody can explain why that is. Since 1998, there has been no increase in average global temperatures—it has completely tailed off. Again, nobody can come up with a convincing explanation for that. Yet despite all that, and many other queries too, we are embarking on policies that will put up costs for householders, through the use of subsidies for solar and wind-powered energy, and put up costs for manufacturers, through the various taxes on carbon that we are levying.
The most serious point is that we are doing so unilaterally: Britain is taking steps that nobody else in the world is taking. Our carbon emissions are actually not that great compared with the rest of the world, yet we are unilaterally punishing manufacturers, forcing them to take their factories elsewhere, where they will continue to emit exactly the same amount of CO2, taking their jobs and forcing us into foreign exchange deficits as we buy goods that were originally made here.
Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend is eloquently putting the case for those who doubt that global warming is down to climate change, and I am sure that many support his views, but does he agree that moving to a more renewable energy environment is important for energy security as much as anything else?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point, because there is a lot that we can do to generate electricity without CO2 and one would think that the Greens would be the first to support it. We had a proposal recently for a Severn barrage that could generate 20% of Britain’s electricity. It was an interesting proposal and one for which I would want to see more costings, but it was totally opposed by the environmentalists. We know that we can generate large amounts of electricity on demand and relatively cheaply from nuclear power without emitting CO2, but where do the environmentalists stand on it? They are totally against it.
In the United States of America, by exploiting shale gas, I understand that they have halved electricity prices and created a wonderful environment for manufacturers—so much so that they are returning to the States. More importantly for the environmentalists, however, that has also reduced American CO2 emissions. One would think that the Greens would be jumping for joy, but instead they are doing everything they can to prevent the Government from encouraging those companies to get in there, drill and exploit the cheap shale gas that we know we have and which could do so much. I question what their beliefs really are.
I hear the environmentalists saying to me, “The most important thing to do is reduce our CO2 emissions”, but whenever anyone puts solutions in front of them that would reduce CO2 emissions and deliver the cheap electricity that we all need, they do not want to know. They are the same people who march against globalisation and capitalism, who totally opposed any form of nuclear deterrent in the 1980s and who a few hundred years ago would have been the Luddites smashing up the spinning wheels. These people live in a fantasy world, believing that if we could just get rid of technology, we could go back to living in wonderful grass huts and things in some Tolkienesque world, like the hobbits before the evil one started attacking them. They are totally opposed to the high standards of living that globalisation and capitalism have delivered in the west and are delivering across the whole world.
It is high time that the Government realised that these people will never support anyone in government. Only recently, Friends of the Earth ran a big campaign against increased energy costs, but one reason energy costs have increased is that the Government have been trying to follow policies recommended by that same organisation—policies of supporting wind farms and solar panels that are bound to increase energy costs. It is ludicrous for the people who have been advocating policies that will increase energy costs to demand that we bring them down.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I rise to support the Gracious Speech.
Without any shadow of a doubt, we live in a global economy. We have heard many speeches about the cost of living based on the domestic policies that are set nationally, and there is indeed an important debate to be had about that. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I regret the fact that we will not discuss international affairs during the debate on the Gracious Speech.
An escalation of issues in the middle east would have a very detrimental effect on the cost of living in this country. Many hon. Members have talked about the cost of energy—oil and gas—in this country and the increase in fuel poverty. The stark truth is that that could increase only if we were to move towards a more militarised conflict across the middle east. There are serious concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but that does not mean that we should take a unilateral decision, or a decision with any other nation, to take military action against that country. The mere suggestion of moving forward there could result in oil price rises across the world that would have a deep impact on the people of this nation, without a single bullet being fired.
We do not get any oil from Iran; we got only 2% before the EU embargo came in. However, a vast majority of the oil coming into this country comes through the Straits of Hormuz, and if the oil traders believe that there is a threat to those shipping lanes, oil prices will inexorably rise. We must remember that oil is bought three months in advance of when it is sold. If the oil traders believe that there may be difficulty in getting that oil out of the Gulf and into our country, oil prices will increase, and that will affect every aspect of the cost of living in this country. It is not just about the straightforward issue of fuel prices. If we are on a bus we have to get a bus ticket, or if we are on a train the electricity has to be generated to run it. The price of oil affects the price of food in our shops, which has to be transported there using fossil fuels. That shows why we should have discussed the effects of international affairs on this nation during our debates on the Gracious Speech.
I do not think I am the only Government Member who seriously questions the wisdom of relaxing the EU arms agreement on Syria. If history has taught us anything over the past 10 years, it is that picking a side and arming it will rarely lead to a useful outcome for world stability. If we side with the opposition in Syria, who are we actually siding with? Many companies in this country that employ many people are now banking with Israeli banks, and that has a direct influence on their strategic fiscal capability. Do we seriously want to empower an opposition that has some, let us say, interesting people on the Islamic fundamentalist side who are right next door to a country that the vast majority of Arab countries would like to see removed from the face of the map? That instability, linked with Iran talking to Hezbollah and a change in the dynamic in Syria, could have a direct consequence on the ability of companies to operate in this country.
Dr Julian Lewis
Would my hon. Friend also like to make an observation on whether the task of humanitarian intervention has been made that much more difficult by the way we went about it in Libya? We said that it would be a very limited, no-fly-zone-type intervention, but we ended up intervening much more directly on one side, and in a strictly military way, in a civil war?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is a recent example of a country that we helped to liberate, but it led to issues for our embassy and that of the US. That paints a picture. However good the intentions to solve a crisis may be, the question is: what comes next?
That is not to say that we should shirk our responsibilities towards humanitarian aid. More than 1 million refugees are flooding out of Syria into Jordan alone, a country that is ill-equipped to deal with that number. We will eventually be called upon to help with that humanitarian crisis and it is important that we will, again, be there for our fellow man. I come back to the point that, when we debate the cost of living in this country and the Government’s programme over the next year, we should also discuss international issues, because, importantly, they are interlinked with everything we do.
In 1983, when I was a child of just six or seven years of age, the film “Threads” was made. I watched it recently and am sure that a number of other Members have also seen it. It is set in Sheffield in the 1980s in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. It is a sobering film and it should be watched. What struck me about it is that those who made the decisions that caused the wars to take place did not feature in the film. Indeed, given that it was set in Sheffield, the decisions were being made 190 miles away in London and elsewhere in the world. That is the point I am trying to make: we have to take notice of the innocent people on the ground and of the impact of our decisions.
We live in a highly volatile world and have to be very careful about how we move forward, and it is regrettable that the debate on the Gracious Speech has not given us the opportunity to address these issues, which could have such a fundamental impact on our cost of living.
Geraint Davies
That is a key point.
We are always hearing that everything is all right in the UK and the problems are someone else’s fault. The EU does have problems, but there are emerging opportunities in China, India, Brazil and elsewhere. The Queen’s Speech should have provided a strategic platform for international trade to help us access the newly emergent and massive middle classes who want to take our consumer goods and who form the basis of inward capital investment. But no, we are busy being the one nation, fish and chip shop, Eurosceptic Britain—the nation of shopkeepers that Napoleon described us as. It is frankly pathetic. The Conservatives are not fit to be in government.
Between 1997 and 2008, we saw growth of 40%. Not enough Labour Members stand up and defend that. If our debt to GDP ratio is going from 55% to 85%, how can we sort it out? One way is to cut debt and to stamp on the poor for the recklessness of the bankers, which is what the Tories are doing. The other is to increase GDP so that the ratio goes down. Under Labour, GDP went up by 40% up to 2008. In 2008, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and President Obama put together the fiscal stimulus. The EU’s fiscal stimulus was 2% of GDP. In the United States, it was 5% of GDP. Indeed, the United States put in $2 trillion of quantitative easing, whereas the EU put in nothing. Britain did put in something, but we still have the economics of austerity here and in Europe. In the United States, where the economy was stimulated, growth is projected to be 3% in the next year. In the EU, it is projected to be 1%. Why was nothing done about that in the Queen’s Speech?
We have seen the emergence of massive youth unemployment. In Greece, the rate is more than 60% and in Italy it is 38%. In Greece, people are moving towards the Nazis and extreme communists. In Italy, 25% of people voted for a comedian. I notice that that is the same percentage of people who are voting for UKIP here. The British National party’s support has gone up fourfold from 1% to 4%. The response of the Tories is to run for the hills and emulate UKIP.
Why has support for UKIP gone up? The first reason is that the Prime Minister has given it credibility by saying that he will hold a referendum. People who used to say to me when I knocked on their doors, “You must be joking. We’ve got millions of jobs involved in trade with Europe. It’s the platform into China, India and the United States”, are now thinking, “Hold on. Cameron’s offering us this option, so it must be a credible choice.” That gives oxygen to UKIP.
Alec Shelbrooke
What is the hon. Gentleman’s reaction to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd), who said that their party should support a referendum on Europe?
Geraint Davies
Obviously, I disagree with that. I do not agree with a referendum, but if the overwhelming majority of people in Britain want one, I accept that we should have one. I am simply saying that the case for a referendum has been whipped up because of the Conservatives’ fear of UKIP. They have fed it red meat, and it is coming back for more.
It is the same with immigration. Everyone is going, “Oh no, there’s too much immigration. It’s terrible, isn’t it?” However, immigration was part of the reason for our economic growth. We prematurely let in some of the people from Poland who would have been able to come here anyway, and meanwhile Germany is saying that it needs more immigrants to pay for the generation that is growing old. We obviously need to manage immigration properly and carefully, but we should consider that 6% of immigrants are on benefits compared with 16% of indigenous people.
We are providing ammunition for people to blame immigrants, and what was in the Queen’s Speech? Private landlords and health providers will have to find out whether someone is an immigrant and whether they are legal. What will be the easiest test of that? “Are you white or are you black?” It is institutional racism. We are feeding the UKIP voters by saying, “The austerity problems aren’t Tory austerity problems, they’re because of all the immigrants.” Is that helping anyone and creating a united and strong Britain with a one nation future? No, it is creating a weak, divided nation of people who are being crushed by the Tories, and the poorest are blaming the immigrants. It stinks.