LABOUR’S PLAN TO OPEN DOORS TO BRI­TAIN EVEN WIDER

Cor­byn ad­viser’s pro­posal to let in tens of thou­sands of un­skilled mi­grants is leaked

Daily Mail - - Front Page - By Jack Doyle and Ja­son Groves

LABOUR has drawn up se­cret plans to throw open Bri­tain’s doors to thou­sands of un­skilled mi­grants af­ter Brexit.

An in­ter­nal pol­icy doc­u­ment leaked to the Daily Mail re­veals the party is con­sid­er­ing in­tro­duc­ing a visa for mi­grants seek­ing ‘low-skilled,

un­skilled or sea­sonal work’.

The doc­u­ment, drawn up this month by Jeremy Cor­byn’s do­mes­tic pol­icy ad­viser, Lach­lan Stu­art, also pro­poses ax­ing rules which limit for­eign spouses liv­ing here un­less they can show they will not be a ‘bur­den’ on the tax­payer.

Labour’s man­i­festo made no men­tion of a plan to al­low in more un­skilled mi­grants. Mr Cor­byn has re­peat­edly re­fused to say whether he thinks im­mi­gra­tion lev­els are too high. It came on a day of chaos for Labour in which:

Mr Cor­byn suf­fered an­other ‘ car- crash’ in­ter­view on the BBC’s Woman’s Hour show in which he was un­able to say how much his flag­ship child­care pol­icy would cost;

The Labour leader was forced to apol­o­gise af­ter his sup­port­ers bom­barded pre­sen­ter Emma

Bar­nett with vile anti-Semitic abuse, on the day he was launch­ing the party’s pol­icy to tackle anti-Semitism;

Mr Cor­byn was branded a ‘huge dis­ap­point­ment’ by users of the Mum­snet web­site af­ter he cut short an elec­tion chat with moth­ers;

labour’s shadow for­eign sec­re­tary Emily Thorn­berry faced mock­ery af­ter sug­gest­ing Bri­tish farm­ers could not in­crease ex­ports to aus­tralia af­ter Brexit be­cause the food ‘would go off’.

labour’s man­i­festo prom­ises ‘fair rules and rea­son­able man­age­ment’ of im­mi­gra­tion, but gives few de­tails on the type of regime it would op­er­ate af­ter Brexit.

Mr Cor­byn, who has al­ways op­posed a cap on mi­gra­tion, said on Mon­day that im­mi­gra­tion would ‘prob­a­bly’ come down un­der labour, but added: ‘Don’t hold me to that.’

The leaked pol­icy doc­u­ment sug­gests labour’s plans could add tens of thou­sands ev­ery year to net mi­gra­tion, and will cause alarm in work­ing-class labour con­stituen­cies which voted for Brexit.

The doc­u­ment says labour would also re­lax rules on han­dling asy­lum claims if it wins power.

The party last night con­firmed the doc­u­ment was gen­uine but in­sisted it was only one of sev­eral ‘dis­cus­sion doc­u­ments’ and was not yet of­fi­cial pol­icy.

But the doc­u­ment ap­pears to set out a

‘Those with no skills at all’

de­tailed blue­print that labour will pur­sue if Mr Cor­byn wins power next week.

It re­veals that labour would open ‘tier 3’ of the im­mi­gra­tion sys­tem to new ap­pli­cants for the first time. This route into Bri­tain, which was one of the five orig­i­nal tiers cre­ated by labour in 2008, was never used be­cause of the huge in­flux of mi­grants from East­ern Europe.

Tier 1 visas are for entrepreneurs and busi­ness investors, tier 2 for skilled mi­grants spon­sored by UK busi­nesses, tier 4 is stu­dent visas and tier 5 of­fers tem­po­rary visas for young peo­ple aged 18 to 30. all four are op­er­at­ing.

In March 2013, David Cameron an­nounced tier 3 would be ‘shut down com­pletely’ in a speech in which he ques­tioned why it was even cre­ated.

‘There was even, ex­traor­di­nar­ily, a tier specif­i­cally cre­ated for those with no skills at all. Now why would you want to cre­ate such a tier?’ he said.

But in labour’s pol­icy doc­u­ment, a se­nior of­fi­cial writes: ‘We en­vis­age a re­quire­ment to make con­tin­ued use of the cur- rent five- tiered tiered visa sys­tem, in­clud­ing the cur­rently un­used tier ap­pli­ca­ble to those seek­ing low- skilled, un­skilled or sea­sonal work.’

The doc­u­ment also pro­poses scrap­ping the means test which lim­its some fam­ily mi­gra­tion. any­one want­ing to bring in a spouse or part­ner from non-EU coun­tries has to meet a be­fore-tax in­come re­quire­ment of £18,600. In­tro­duced by Theresa May when she was Home Sec­re­tary, it was de­signed to stop wives or hus­bands be­com­ing a ‘bur­den on the State’.

The Tories have pledged to in­crease the min­i­mum amount, but scrap­ping it en­tirely could – ac­cord­ing to of­fi­cial fig­ures – add be­tween 14,000 and 18,000 a year to mi­grant num­bers. The ba­sis of Mr Cor­byn’s post-Brexit im­mi­gra­tion pol­icy is a green card sys­tem. any­one who suc­cess­fully ap­plied would have per­ma­nent res­i­dency rights.

all EU cit­i­zens liv­ing here would be granted a card and ap­pli­ca­tions would be open to any­one with ‘fam­ily con­nec­tions, a job of­fer, rel­e­vant skills for em­ploy­ment and refugee or asy­lum sta­tus’. Mr Cor­byn’s ad­vis­ers ad­mit the pro­posal would re­quire five en­tirely new IT sys­tems.

On asy­lum, the doc­u­ment says: ‘We would over­haul our dis­cred­ited cur­rent sys­tem in or­der to up­hold our obli­ga­tions to those flee­ing war and per­se­cu­tion. Im­mi­gra­tion is driven more by eco­nomic re­quire­ments of both mi­grant and host far more than it is reg­u­lated by sys­tems of per­mit con­trol. The num­bers might go up or down but not as a con­se­quence of these changes. We are not set­ting false, mis­lead­ing, di­vi­sive tar­gets.’

a labour spokesman said: ‘af­ter Bri­tain leaves the EU, free move­ment of labour will come to an end. labour will in­tro­duce fair rules and man­aged mi­gra­tion, based on the needs of our econ­omy.

‘a num­ber of dis­cus­sion pa­pers have been pro­duced. This is part of one such doc­u­ment. It is not a state­ment of labour pol­icy, which is set out in our man­i­festo.’

THE more you tell teenagers about sex, the more sex they will have. And the more un­wanted preg­nan­cies will re­sult.

You might have thought that was ob­vi­ous. But, for decades, the lib­eral es­tab­lish­ment has thought the ex­act op­po­site. Tell teenagers about the per­ils of un­pro­tected sex, and they’ll have less of it — or so their ill-judged think­ing has gone.

Well, now an aca­demic study has shown quite how mis­guided those pro­gres­sive thoughts were.

David Pa­ton, of the Not­ting­ham Univer­sity Busi­ness School, and Liam Wright, of the Univer­sity of Sh­effield, have dis­cov­ered that teenage preg­nan­cies have ac­tu­ally de­clined in those ar­eas where coun­cils have cut their bud­gets for sex education pro­grammes ag­gres­sively.

In the Jour­nal of Health Eco­nomics, the two aca­demics came to the con­clu­sion that ‘spend­ing on projects re­lat­ing to teenage preg­nancy may be coun­ter­pro­duc­tive’.

Ex­plicit

In other words, where the Govern­ment has tried to ed­u­cate teenagers about sex in an at­tempt to dis­cour­age it, the ex­act op­po­site has been achieved.

The study ex­am­ined the ef­fect of dra­matic bud­get cut­backs af­ter the 2008 fi­nan­cial crash by lo­cal authorities which had pre­vi­ously been spend­ing mil­lions a year on sex pre­ven­tion mea­sures such as mak­ing the morn­ing-af­ter pill avail­able, hir­ing teenage preg­nancy co-or­di­na­tors, and hold­ing sex­ual health clin­ics and sex and re­la­tion­ship education classes in schools.

Over the five years be­tween 2009 and 2014, preg­nancy rates fell by 42.6 per cent to their low­est lev­els since 1969.

What is so strik­ing is that this lat­est study proves ex­actly what those of us who have spe­cialised in this area have been say­ing for years.

Specif­i­cally, back in 2004, a re­port by the Fam­ily Education Trust — an in­de­pen­dent think-tank which stud­ies the ef­fect of fam­ily break­down — re­vealed that, in ar­eas with the most teenage preg­nancy projects, teenage preg­nan­cies were ris­ing.

Specif­i­cally, the re­port — en­ti­tled Sex Education Or In­doc­tri­na­tion? — said that the ex­plicit sex education leaflets and free con­doms pro­vided to un­der-age girls by govern­ment schemes had sim­ply en­cour­aged them to have sex. It claimed there was a di­rect link be­tween giv­ing young peo­ple sex education of this na­ture and the boost to the num­ber of ba­bies born.

To­day, once more, there is clear ev­i­dence of a di­rect cor­re­la­tion be­tween in­creased sex education and teenagers hav­ing more sex. Yet still, the of­fi­cial ap­proach is to in­sist that sex education — at younger and younger ages — is the only an­swer to the cri­sis.

Only this year, Royal Assent was given to the Chil­dren and So­cial Work Act 2017, which makes it a re­quire­ment for all sec­ondary schools in Eng­land to teach sex education, and for pri­mary schools to tackle ‘re­la­tion­ships’ in the cur­ricu­lum.

And while, for some pupils, these kinds of lessons may be help­ful at an ap­pro­pri­ate age, there is im­mense pres­sure from to­day’s pro­gres­sive sex education in­dus­try to con­tin­u­ally lower that age.

A few years ago, an in­ves­ti­ga­tion by the Chris­tian In­sti­tute char­ity found that pri­mary schools con­doned sex education lessons us­ing graphic images in the form of comic­style books with car­toon ex­pla­na­tions of mas­tur­ba­tion and or­gasm, and cray­oned draw­ings to ex­plain the dif­fer­ence be­tween het­ero­sex­u­al­ity and ho­mo­sex­u­al­ity.

Mean­while, del­e­gates to the National Union of Teach­ers con­fer­ence in Cardiff last month called for tod­dlers to be taught about LGBT is­sues in nurs­ery schools.

Apart from grotesquely rob­bing chil­dren of their in­no­cence, this ap­proach to sex education even for older chil­dren flies in the face of san­ity.

And if you start teach­ing chil­dren about sex at a younger and younger age, the in­evitable con­se­quence will be that they go out and try it at a younger and younger age.

This is be­cause lit­tle of this sex education is ac­com­pa­nied by moral stric­tures or any mes­sage of ab­sti­nence or re­straint. So all of these var­i­ous cour­ses end up en­cour­ag­ing teenagers not only to think about sex, but also to think about it as some­thing at­trac­tive.

Yes, for more ad­vanced teenagers who are go­ing to have sex any­way, there is a chance the free con­tra­cep­tion handed out by these pro­grammes may re­duce preg­nan­cies.

But, for those chil­dren who are re­luc­tant or shy about sex, these classes will only ex­ert a pres­sure to have sex, where pre­vi­ously there was none. And then, when sex­ual health clin­ics start hand­ing out con­doms with a no-ques­tion­sasked pol­icy, ev­ery­thing be­comes so much eas­ier.

Sex is sud­denly high on the agenda for teenagers who would oth­er­wise have been ex­tremely cau­tious about it. All of a sud­den, un­der­age sex be­comes a so­cial norm.

And this brings us to a much darker side of the nor­mal­i­sa­tion of teenage sex, and one that should trou­ble us all.

As the Fam­ily Education Trust re­vealed ear­lier this year, some of the girls used for sex by Asian gangs in the abuse scan­dals in Rochdale and Ox­ford had vis­ited teenage sex-ad­vice clin­ics.

Taboo

At the age of only 13 or 14, they were vis­it­ing sex­ual health pro­fes­sion­als, not to seek ad­vice about how to avoid un­der­age sex, but in or­der to get con­tra­cep­tives, which they were given read­ily.

As Nor­man Wells, the direc­tor of the Fam­ily Education Trust, said: ‘The ev­i­dence from re­cent se­ri­ous case re­views clearly demon­strates that fun­da­men­tal flaws in pro­fes­sional at­ti­tudes to­wards un­der­age sex­ual ac­tiv­ity have di­rectly contributed to ex­ploita­tion and abuse.’

The pro­fes­sion­als, rather than in­ves­ti­gat­ing these hor­rors, or ad­vis­ing against un­der­age sex, were com­pletely ac­cept­ing of the fact that these girls were hav­ing un­der­age sex. The taboo wasn’t un­der­age sex; the taboo was be­ing judg­men­tal. And so this ap­palling scan­dal was al­lowed to rage on unchecked.

For decades, we have failed young teenagers by mak­ing sex ac­cept­able and fa­cil­i­tat­ing it. This failed phi­los­o­phy in cur­tail­ing teenage preg­nancy be­gan in the Sev­en­ties. It co­in­cided with the nor­mal­i­sa­tion of sex out­side mar­riage, com­bined with the pill and a gen­eral at­ti­tude that chil­dren should be told about the joys of sex, rather than just say no and wait.

A pro­tec­tive at­ti­tude to chil­dren was con­sid­ered sti­fling and old-fash­ioned. The as­sump­tion was that, the more they know, the bet­ter it would be for them.

Dam­ag­ing

And the re­sult? A huge rise in teenage preg­nan­cies. In 1999, Bri­tain had the high­est rate of teenage preg­nancy in Europe, a rate boosted by the easy ac­cess to wel­fare for teenage moth­ers. The fig­ures co­in­cided with a mas­sive rise in fam­ily break­down, too. Only in re­cent years have these fig­ures started to sub­side.

To be fair, the teenage preg­nancy ini­tia­tives were well-meant — but they have gone badly wrong, need­lessly ex­pos­ing young girls to harm.

In some schools, they’ve tried to sup­ply bet­ter ma­te­rial, with sug­ges­tions to pupils that it would be bet­ter to ab­stain or wait. But that ap­proach is still far from be­ing the norm. In govern­ment, they are still cling­ing to the idea that giv­ing chil­dren knowl­edge about sex is the an­swer.

They are pur­su­ing the line that the more we tell chil­dren about sex, the safer they’ll be. We have a moun­tain of ev­i­dence that the re­verse is the case — par­tic­u­larly for the vul­ner­a­ble, such as the young girls abused in Rochdale.

This lat­est find­ing, backed up by pre­vi­ous stud­ies, should be a wake-up call to all those who fail to pro­tect our young peo­ple by cling­ing to out­dated and dam­ag­ing ideas.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.