Border Force staff check a shipping containers at Southampton docks on August 13, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour will take a progressive approach to immigration. But we must address people's concerns

A stronger and fairer system is the right response to both the positives and negatives immigration can bring.

When I talk to people across the country, one of the main issues they raise with me is immigration. Most people don't want to see us close our borders, pull up the drawbridge and cut ourselves off from the world. Most people recognise immigration is - and will continue to be - important to Britain. But they are concerned about some of the impact it has had on their local community. They are worried, for example, about the impact on their wages, on the number of local jobs available and on the NHS, schools and housing. And the truth is that, for a long time, politicians did not recognise or talk enough about these legitimate concerns.

But Labour has recognised this, and recent speeches from Ed Milliband and Yvette Cooper and the announcements the party has made this week on strengthening our borders, arguing for reform in Europe to make the system fairer and tackling the undercutting of jobs and wagers in our labour market are just the latest in our responses to people’s concerns, and in us looking at the facts and setting out a plan of action to make immigration work better for everyone.

Immigration is important to Britain, and Labour will not shy away from making that case. Our country has benefited over centuries from the hard work, skills and creativity of people who have come here to start businesses, work in our NHS, our armed forces, or study In our universities. But we also know immigration but needs to be managed and controlled so the system is fair.

The Tories' approach simply isn't working. David Cameron’s promise to get net migration down to the “tens of thousands”. But net migration is at the same level now as it was in 2010 - over 200,000. So this is just another broken promise from the Prime Minister, which undermines people’s trust in politicians to keep their word on immigration. 

And Ukip’s approach is worse; they would make it harder to tackle illegal immigration and deport foreign criminals by stopping us working closely with our partners across Europe, not to mention the recent offensive suggestions that they might want to repatriate people living here already.

So Labour want a different approach built on our values. We want to welcome the international talent and trade we need for our country to thrive and grow. But we do need to strengthen our borders and introduce clear and enforceable rules so we can do more to tackle illegal immigration and ensure people who come to our country contribute. There is no contradiction in those approaches, and both are vital in building an immigration system that commands the public’s trust.

We believe the system does need to change. At the moment we don’t know who has come here and who has left, so it is very difficult to know how many people are illegally overstaying their visas or remain here after failed asylum applications. We would introduce a new system so we can count people in and out of the country. And Labour would also make it easier to deport people who come here and commit crimes.

It isn’t fair that people can come to our country and claim child benefit and child tax credits for children living abroad.  So we would stop that, and we would significantly extend the period before people can claim benefits. This is key because it’s about ensuring taxypayers' money is used fairly; it can’t be right that children who aren’t in the UK are benefiting from British social security spending.

And we need much stronger action to stop employers who are exploiting cheap migrant labour to undercut wages and jobs - stopping agencies who are only recruiting from abroad, or firms that are exploiting zero-hours contracts or not paying the minimum wage. The Tories and Ukip at their core don’t believe in helping and protecting workers, so no other party is even talking about that, let alone introducing policies to tackle it. 

Labour wants to see progressive immigration system - but that has to recognise that the immigration we’ve experienced in the past 20 years has had some negative effects, particularly for those in low-skilled and low-paid work.  These are the people for whom the Labour Party was first formed, and it isn’t progressive to gloss over their experiences and concerns. Managed migration that stops these negative effects by changing the immigration system to be stronger and fairer is the only progressive response to both the positives and negatives immigration can bring. 

So at this election it should be clear that Labour will not follow the escalation of rhetoric offered by those on the right.  We will offer a different approach to immigration. A progressive approach built on our principles, an immigration system that is good for Britain; and one that makes immigration work for all.

David Hanson is Labour MP for Delyn and shadow Home Office minister

Getty
Show Hide image

Air pollution: 5 steps to vanquishing an invisible killer

A new report looks at the economics of air pollution. 

110, 150, 520... These chilling statistics are the number of deaths attributable to particulate air pollution for the cities of Southampton, Nottingham and Birmingham in 2010 respectively. Or how about 40,000 - that is the total number of UK deaths per year that are attributable the combined effects of particulate matter (PM2.5) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx).

This situation sucks, to say the very least. But while there are no dramatic images to stir up action, these deaths are preventable and we know their cause. Road traffic is the worst culprit. Traffic is responsible for 80 per cent of NOx on high pollution roads, with diesel engines contributing the bulk of the problem.

Now a new report by ResPublica has compiled a list of ways that city councils around the UK can help. The report argues that: “The onus is on cities to create plans that can meet the health and economic challenge within a short time-frame, and identify what they need from national government to do so.”

This is a diplomatic way of saying that current government action on the subject does not go far enough – and that cities must help prod them into gear. That includes poking holes in the government’s proposed plans for new “Clean Air Zones”.

Here are just five of the ways the report suggests letting the light in and the pollution out:

1. Clean up the draft Clean Air Zones framework

Last October, the government set out its draft plans for new Clean Air Zones in the UK’s five most polluted cities, Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton (excluding London - where other plans are afoot). These zones will charge “polluting” vehicles to enter and can be implemented with varying levels of intensity, with three options that include cars and one that does not.

But the report argues that there is still too much potential for polluters to play dirty with the rules. Car-charging zones must be mandatory for all cities that breach the current EU standards, the report argues (not just the suggested five). Otherwise national operators who own fleets of vehicles could simply relocate outdated buses or taxis to places where they don’t have to pay.  

Different vehicles should fall under the same rules, the report added. Otherwise, taking your car rather than the bus could suddenly seem like the cost-saving option.

2. Vouchers to vouch-safe the project’s success

The government is exploring a scrappage scheme for diesel cars, to help get the worst and oldest polluting vehicles off the road. But as the report points out, blanket scrappage could simply put a whole load of new fossil-fuel cars on the road.

Instead, ResPublica suggests using the revenue from the Clean Air Zone charges, plus hiked vehicle registration fees, to create “Pollution Reduction Vouchers”.

Low-income households with older cars, that would be liable to charging, could then use the vouchers to help secure alternative transport, buy a new and compliant car, or retrofit their existing vehicle with new technology.

3. Extend Vehicle Excise Duty

Vehicle Excise Duty is currently only tiered by how much CO2 pollution a car creates for the first year. After that it becomes a flat rate for all cars under £40,000. The report suggests changing this so that the most polluting vehicles for CO2, NOx and PM2.5 continue to pay higher rates throughout their life span.

For ClientEarth CEO James Thornton, changes to vehicle excise duty are key to moving people onto cleaner modes of transport: “We need a network of clean air zones to keep the most polluting diesel vehicles from the most polluted parts of our towns and cities and incentives such as a targeted scrappage scheme and changes to vehicle excise duty to move people onto cleaner modes of transport.”

4. Repurposed car parks

You would think city bosses would want less cars in the centre of town. But while less cars is good news for oxygen-breathers, it is bad news for city budgets reliant on parking charges. But using car parks to tap into new revenue from property development and joint ventures could help cities reverse this thinking.

5. Prioritise public awareness

Charge zones can be understandably unpopular. In 2008, a referendum in Manchester defeated the idea of congestion charging. So a big effort is needed to raise public awareness of the health crisis our roads have caused. Metro mayors should outline pollution plans in their manifestos, the report suggests. And cities can take advantage of their existing assets. For example in London there are plans to use electronics in the Underground to update travellers on the air pollution levels.

***

Change is already in the air. Southampton has used money from the Local Sustainable Travel Fund to run a successful messaging campaign. And in 2011 Nottingham City Council became the first city to implement a Workplace Parking levy – a scheme which has raised £35.3m to help extend its tram system, upgrade the station and purchase electric buses.

But many more “air necessities” are needed before we can forget about pollution’s worry and its strife.  

 

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.