In last week’s Daily Mail, (19/2/09) David Cameron MP pledged to cut immigration by 50,000 per year.

On ConservativeHome ,  Nicholas Soames MP asks the question: what are we going to do to stop the population figures reaching 70 million by 2028?

I strongly recommend reading both articles. Of the 10 million increase by 2028, 7 million will be due to immigration; the equivalent in size to a further seven cities the size of Birmingham.

We live in difficult times. We live on an island. The NFU estimate that we are capable of supplying/growing 60% of what we need to eat, today.

If immigration continues to grow at this rate, we will need to build more homes; and that means concreting over more green fields, many of which are arable and supply us with crops today.

Dairy herds are disappearing from this country at a rapid rate. We are down to twelve in Mid Bedfordshire. The average age of a farmer is 60.

World peace does not exist. Peace in the Middle East at best estimates is some way off. What would happen if each country had some form of import restrictions for whatever reason, and needed to become ‘food secure’?

If we are only food sufficient to the point of 60% today, where would we be once immigration has grown by a further 10 million?

We are the most densely populated country in Europe; and as I said, we are an island.
Is Britain already full?

It used to be the case that those who worked in the public sector were paid less than the private sector because of a number of other advantages, and notably among those a generous pension scheme. But with salaries that now exceed equivalent private sector roles at many levels those pension arrangements need to be reviewed.

We cannot have a quarter of Council Tax going on local Government pensions. We cannot have schemes which double in cost to the taxpayer every seven years. Since the Government came into power the cost of local pensions to the taxpayer has risen from £1.322billion to £5.009 billion far outstripping annual inflation rates. It is not sustainable and at a time when those in the private sector face pension cuts it is not fair either.

But that is not the end of the problem. A golden egg attracts admirers and the security and pension of a public sector job is taking more and more incentives away for graduates to join the private sector, at the very time when they are needed to help Britain out of recession.

The Prime Minister has presided over this exponential increase in public sector employment. He must now recognise that error and start to recede it.

Against the backdrop of apparently endless economic gloom, the terrible news that three men who raped and disfigured a disabled girl were given appallingly short prison sentences has been forced out of the headlines. What a forceful reminder that we must not allow the economic imperative to displace concentration on the cruel effects of social disintegration!

The deadening weight of economic bad news, perhaps understandably, encourages the political class to focus solely on it’s causes and consequences. Yet the shape and form of the economic crisis are inseperable from the brutal characteristics of modernity. And for the most disadvantaged Britons the fear and reality of crime damages lives and scars communities. As recent research from the Centre for Social Justice suggests: “Britain is witnessing a growth in an underclass whose lifestyles affect everyone”1

Throughout the country, economic woe is bound to crime and disorder. In many urban pockets a nascent criminal class is emerging, ignorant of human dignity and careless of life. A class that consistently produces the pain of disorder. The emergent narrative of each tragic story is of the absence of individual and communal responsibility; of broken estates wrecked by economic decline and purposelessness slowly descending into hopelessness. At the heart of Conservatism is an understanding that the responsible limits on feckless liberty are essential components of a civilized society. As David Cameron said in his superb conference speech, “freedom can too easily turn into the idea that we all have the right to do whatever we want, regardless of the effect on others. That is libertarian, not Conservative – and it is certainly not me. For me, the most important word is responsibility….and we know that we will only be a strong society if we are a responsible society.”  

A civilised society is not defined by men’s capacity to do as they will (which we share with the apes), but by their willingness to do as they ought. It is not “can do” but “should do” that counts.

Tony Blair once promised to be tough on crime and its causes; but his party’s government deflects the devastating failure on both fronts with a deluge of spin. Jacqui Smith boasted in 2008 about their “success” in cutting crime…and tackling youth crime. Yet a recent Ministry of Justice/DCSF report fatally undermines her argument, concluding that Labour’s 10 year strategy for tackling youth crime has failed. It revealed that around 25% of under-18s have committed an offence, while re-offending rates are ‘very high and have not significantly changed’ since 1997. It is clear that Labour’s 37 criminal justice acts have had little or no effect and that Jacqui Smith doesn’t know it.   

In these trying times, our compassion must extend to each and every citizen living on the front line of disorder; that means ensuring that bad news on crime is not buried, and it means articulating our appreciation that the tapestry of the “good life” extends far beyond the pursuit and gratification of material self interest. For Conservatives understand that what we share and do together matters most.  

 1. Ian Duncan Smith, The Daily Telegraph, 6^th December 2008

In the Liaison Committee yesterday morning I questioned the Prime Minister about the impact of the recession on the public sector. One main point of my questioning was to establish whether the Government’s current spending, and future spending plans, were sustainable in the midst of a recession, with government borrowing now at the same level (8 per cent of GDP) as it was in 1976, when Denis Healey went as a supplicant to the IMF.

As reported on one website Mr Brown did his usual stolid stonewalling. He even accused me of wanting to scrap the NHS’ IT Programme; something I have never proposed! As I said (as with most things) I just want to make it work efficiently and cost-effectively – something that is very far from happening at the moment.

You can find an overview of the Committee’s session this morning on the Guardian online.

Below is the transcript of my encounter with Mr Brown.

Q53 Mr Leigh: Good morning, Prime Minister. With the recession deepening by the day and with interest rates at an historic low and deficits at an historic high, what more can you do now to boost the economy without ruining it so that it really does become Crash rather than Flash Gordon?

Mr Brown: I do not agree with you. I think the action we are taking is absolutely essential and I hope that you would agree it was the right action to be taken.

Q54 Mr Leigh: No; I am not arguing with the past. I am just saying what more can you now do with interest rates at such a low and deficits at such a high?

Mr Brown: If you take what is happening, for example, the VAT cut, you have seen two months of the VAT cuts. It has got another ten months where it is going to raise the amount of money that consumers have in their pockets. You will see a number of measures that are coming in in the next few weeks and months that are dealing with the problems, as we have said, of loan finance for small businesses. The measures we have put in place will start to have their effect, and, of course, the Governor of the Bank of England has stated his policy to make sure that inflation gets to two per cent.

Q55 Mr Leigh: So you have shot the arrows and that is it?

Mr Brown: No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that a number of measures that we have announced will be coming in in the next few weeks.

Q56 Mr Leigh: But there are no more arrows you think we can afford?

Mr Brown: I am not going to get into predicting what is in the Budget at all.

Q57 Mr Leigh: We have seen that if we rush public spending, and there have been numerous PAC reports into the Rural Payments Agency, the NHS computer, we often get waste. As you bring forward your spending plans to boost public spending which was originally planned for 2011 how are you going to avoid waste?

Mr Brown: Because we have already, first of all, implemented the Gershon plans and we are going further than Gershon. Gershon, you may remember, wanted to achieve efficiency savings of £25 billion. At that point we decided also to reduce Civil Service numbers by a net 80,000, and I believe that has now been achieved. The Civil Service numbers are at their lowest for many years. Now we are embarking on the next set of efficiency savings after Gershon and that is a matter for the different departments to meet their commitments to meet these efficiency targets.

Q58 Mr Leigh: Actually, you are finding it fairly difficult already under current spending plans to meet your efficiency gains. The independent National Audit Office report in 2007 found that of the efficiency gains reported at that time one quarter fairly represented efficiency gains, so as you dramatically increase spending how are you going to ensure that you maintain the pressure on efficiency gains?

Mr Brown: What happened with Gershon was that he identified £25 billion of efficiency savings. That was a very big decision that we made a few years ago, to cut the number of civil servants as well as to cut the amount of leeway that departments had without assuring us that they had made efficiency savings. Since achieving Gershon we have pushed up the amounts.

Q59 Mr Leigh: No; that is precisely my question, Prime Minister. You have not achieved Gershon. The independent National Audit Office said that only one quarter fairly represented efficiency gains. We all know that achieving efficiency gains is the most difficult thing in Whitehall. Now you are dramatically increasing spending and we want to know how you are going to ensure that you meet your present targets.

Mr Brown: I do not accept that we have not met Gershon. We have met Gershon. I think it is generally recognised that what we set out to do with Gershon was achieved. It was £25 billion of savings. We achieved them before the time that we had set for achieving them. We reduced Civil Service numbers by a net 75,000 or 80,000; I cannot remember the exact figure, but that is what we managed to do, and we are embarked on a further round of efficiency savings. I think your question may be about what we are going to do in the next stage and I am quite happy to explain that to you, but I do not think you should doubt what we achieved in the last stage.

Q60 Mr Leigh: So how are you going to maintain the pressure now on efficiency?

Mr Brown: Because departments now have very tough targets that they have to meet in relation to efficiency for the future. You chose a number of high profile projects. I disagree with you about the NHS computer. I think it is a necessary project. I think the fact that it is a difficult project does not mean to say that it is not -

Q61 Mr Leigh: £12 billion spend, four years late, Fujitsu having pulled out, Lorenzo only working in one ward in primary care trusts. Do you think that is a great achievement, Prime Minister?

Mr Brown: And patients are getting electronic prescriptions now, people are being able to book their hospital appointments from their computer. You cannot say that that is not an advance, for all the huge problems that a huge project like that has created. You want to abolish it. I say that that is a necessary —–

Q62 Mr Leigh: I do not want to abolish it. I want it efficiently.

Mr Brown: No, you do want to abolish it, and I think that is a necessary —–

Q63 Mr Leigh: When have I said that?

Mr Brown: Your party has. I am glad we have now found that he disagrees with his party.

Q64 Mr Leigh: My last question is that you are going to rely —–

Mr Brown: I just say that with something like the NHS computer it is easy to say it is of no use to anybody, but actually it is providing the electronic prescriptions, doctors’ records are being kept, at the same time as providing a means by which people can book hospital appointments.

Q65 Mr Leigh: You are going to rely very much on the private sector as you boost investment. How are you going to ensure that projects like PFI do not suffer with a lack of private capital investment or that the burden falls on the taxpayer as they pull out?

Mr Brown: We have been looking, obviously, at the Private Finance Initiative and we have been looking at it in relation to the problems that private investors have. Many projects are still going ahead as planned, I just have to say to you, and many of the projects that we are looking at we believe we can find a way forward for, and I think you will find that the Treasury will announce what it plans to do in the next few days.

If you enjoyed the BBC’s television drama ‘The Tudors’, then you will know that Britain hasn’t always been a country of religious tolerance and peace. Sadly, there has recently been a spate of unfortunate cases involving prejudice against Christians which seem very sad to me.

As a nation we have a deserved reputation for religious tolerance, and have become home to many diverse religious groups. While this is to be welcomed, our history shows that we are, at our heart, a Christian country. Indeed, Christianity has been central to many of our greatest achievements. Parliament started in a monastery. The churches established nearly all our early schools and hospitals and it was Christians who led the way in getting slavery outlawed.

But, in our bid to prove a religiously tolerant country I believe we are going too far the other way? Recently we have seen a succession of pernicious attacks on Christianity by aggressive secularism.

A fortnight ago, Caroline Petrie, a nurse from Weston-super-Mare, was suspended without pay by North Somerset Primary Care Trust, because she offered to pray for one of her patients. Despite the fact that the patient hadn’t complained, Mrs Petrie faced disciplinary action on the grounds of failing to demonstrate a “personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity”. The fact that Mrs. Petrie showed obvious compassion for her patient’s wellbeing seems to have been irrelevant to this health trust. Personally, I’d take the compassion and ditch the bureaucratic box ticking which is corroding NHS care.

Last week we heard the case of a mother who was suspended from her job in a school after she defended her child who was in trouble for talking about Christianity in the playground.

In the worst case of all, also highlighted last week, common sense as well as compassion took a back seat to political correctness. This case involved a foster mother and churchgoer in her 50s who had fostered over 80 children. A 16 year old girl in her care decided to convert from Islam to Christianity. She has now been banned from fostering. The resulting loss of income also means she has lost the house she was renting. Worse still, another girl for whom she was providing a loving home has been taken back into care. All this despite the fact the girl was of an age to determine her own religion and says it was her own choice. Incredibly this comes just after the government has made a frantic appeal for another 5,000 fostering families to come forward.        

Are we really saying that as a society we no longer have a place for compassionate Christians who serve the public good?

As someone who swears by free trade for all it is worth, I fear I may be developing hues of protectionism in my approach.

This was brought home to me today as I made a food subsidy, whilst pondering on my new passion for food security.

Let me explain.

My daughter attends university in a seaside town. There is no possible way she could live on the £1,000 per term student loan and pay her own rent.

So, I subsidise her living by paying her rent.

After a weekend at home, she never leaves on a Monday morning, to join the rest of the student population migrating back via National Express (all with bags of clean washing), without what spare cash I have at the time, which I make her take.

The food subsidy comes in the form of the clever way she raids my freezer, fridge and larder and gleefully explains that she has a whole week’s food in her bag.

She has tried to get a job; however, every bar, café, hotel and shop is well staffed with Eastern European labour.

As I write this she, I hope, is sitting at a computer writing her dissertation, aware that as soon as she graduates the subsidies will stop. She doesn’t expect them.

She will be well-trained, a graduate, and able to go out into the world and compete.

Subsidy will continue in the form of a roof over her head and food on the table, whilst she gets herself started; however, once she’s fit, she’s on her own.

Although most of the people that I speak to are opposed to protectionism, maybe it’s the broad brush with which protectionist policies tend to be applied that make them such a disaster for trading partners.

Would protectionist principles work if applied in a sensible, minimal, clearly defined way with an absolute exit strategy? Is that possible? Can a government have its finger close enough to the pulse to know just how much and when?

Just a thought, because it kind of butts onto my new passion for food security, which I’ll blog about tomorrow, or Iain Dale will whinge that my blog’s too long!

Many affected or who have an interest in part 2 of the Police and Crime Bill, which addresses prostitution, met last night.

Many fail to realise that one reason behind the new closure orders could be the ability under the recent Proceeds of Crime Act for the police to keep 25 per cent of the proceeds from a raid. The Crown Prosecution Service keeps 25 per cent and the Inland Revenue the other half.

Yesterday, I spoke to a working girl who had kept all her savings, for the sunny day when she could move away from prostitution. She kept the money in a box in a cupboard in her room along with her jewellery. The box was seized during a police raid, which was made under the wrong premise of a ‘suspicion of drugs’.

She had a three year old and was left with nothing.

It’s hard to believe the by- product of the legislation, which will turn these girls out onto the streets, wasteland and into cars, risking their lives, will be a boost to the government’s coffers.

The Priest from Soho spoke last night.

He spoke about the girls’ abusers as those in the wider political debate using for political means. Wonder who he meant by that?

He asked how long until he had to officiate at a funeral and point a finger at the government and say, “that was your fault”.

He spoke of care and compassion, and how every girl is someone’s daughter, mother, grandmother, sister. Not a scourge on society, not a ‘ hooker’, but human beings, deserving of the same dignity as us all.

He made us all laugh saying he didn’t agree totally will all the girls choices; but he did enjoy getting whistled at every now and then, and at his age that was a privilege.

I was delighted to meet Jean from Hampshire WI.

The WI passed a resolution at their conference to support safe indoor working environments for ‘working girls’.

Andrea was there from the RCN. A trained nurse from Liverpool who works closely within the sector with ‘working girls’.

All knowledgeable well-informed people.

But it was the words of the man who knew the most, which I thought about as I walked back to my committee room.

The man who walked up to the prostitute thrown, lying in the dirt; the man who gave hope, compassion and dignity, the man who said:

 ”where are those who condemn you?”

I opened the door to the Public Bill committee meeting and thought, that’s easy Lord, they’re here, in Room 11.