This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/jul/12/sarah-teather-angry-voices-immigration

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Sarah Teather: 'I'm angry there are no alternative voices on immigration' Sarah Teather: 'I'm angry there are no alternative voices on immigration'
(2 months later)
Had Sarah Teather not lost her job in the last reshuffle, she would now sit on an internal ministerial group whose working title so alarmed her that she tried to have it publicly exposed. "We tried to FoI [Freedom of Information] it out, and they would not let us. I was trying to get it out because, to be honest, I was so appalled."Had Sarah Teather not lost her job in the last reshuffle, she would now sit on an internal ministerial group whose working title so alarmed her that she tried to have it publicly exposed. "We tried to FoI [Freedom of Information] it out, and they would not let us. I was trying to get it out because, to be honest, I was so appalled."
The group exists for the purpose of requiring ministers across government to come up with new ways to make immigrants' lives more difficult, by outsourcing the scrutiny of their legal status to professionals who must act as unpaid immigration officers. The Lib Dems did manage to get it renamed, and it now goes by the title of the inter-ministerial group on migrants' access to benefits and public services. But when first conceived, "on the explicit instructions of the prime minister", it was called the hostile environment working group – its job being to make Britain a hostile environment to unwanted immigrants. Teather shudders and half laughs in disbelief: "You could not make it up."The group exists for the purpose of requiring ministers across government to come up with new ways to make immigrants' lives more difficult, by outsourcing the scrutiny of their legal status to professionals who must act as unpaid immigration officers. The Lib Dems did manage to get it renamed, and it now goes by the title of the inter-ministerial group on migrants' access to benefits and public services. But when first conceived, "on the explicit instructions of the prime minister", it was called the hostile environment working group – its job being to make Britain a hostile environment to unwanted immigrants. Teather shudders and half laughs in disbelief: "You could not make it up."
Until last September, the Lib Dem MP for Brent Central in northwest London was minister for children and families. Elected 10 years ago, at just 29, Teather was one of her party's rising stars, and remains an instinctive loyalist, which may explain why she looks slightly nervous when we meet at her constituency office. But she represents one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs in the country, and when I begin with some small talk about her post-ministerial life she says quickly: "I don't really want this to be about me. The reason I wanted to give this interview is that I'm angry there are no alternative voices on immigration. There is a suddenly this new consensus that has stifled the debate on immigration, and I find it truly terrifying."Until last September, the Lib Dem MP for Brent Central in northwest London was minister for children and families. Elected 10 years ago, at just 29, Teather was one of her party's rising stars, and remains an instinctive loyalist, which may explain why she looks slightly nervous when we meet at her constituency office. But she represents one of the most ethnically diverse boroughs in the country, and when I begin with some small talk about her post-ministerial life she says quickly: "I don't really want this to be about me. The reason I wanted to give this interview is that I'm angry there are no alternative voices on immigration. There is a suddenly this new consensus that has stifled the debate on immigration, and I find it truly terrifying."
One of the latest proposals to emerge from the inter-ministerial group is a policy that would oblige landlords to verify the immigration status of potential tenants. "It's quite an extraordinary change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, isn't it? To expect a private individual to police our immigration system – what's the difference between that and saying you're not allowed to buy a piece of fruit from Sainsbury's without proving you're not an illegal immigrant? Because as a private landlord you are a private individual who is effectively selling a product, and we're saying you're not allowed to sell to this person who can't prove their status."One of the latest proposals to emerge from the inter-ministerial group is a policy that would oblige landlords to verify the immigration status of potential tenants. "It's quite an extraordinary change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, isn't it? To expect a private individual to police our immigration system – what's the difference between that and saying you're not allowed to buy a piece of fruit from Sainsbury's without proving you're not an illegal immigrant? Because as a private landlord you are a private individual who is effectively selling a product, and we're saying you're not allowed to sell to this person who can't prove their status."
Worse still, "It's completely unworkable. I wonder whether or not the people who've designed this policy actually have any idea what Home Office regulations are." An immigrant's status can be contained in any number of different documents, many of which are highly confusing. "So you might have a scrappy old bit of paper that gave you status, that probably by now doesn't even look genuine", or your paperwork may be with the Home Office, "which isn't very good at returning it." No register of landlords exists, so Teather cannot see how such a system could be policed, meaning the worst landlords "will be the ones saying I'll chance it, what are the chances of them checking?", while only reputable landlords will be "nervous about falling foul of the system".Worse still, "It's completely unworkable. I wonder whether or not the people who've designed this policy actually have any idea what Home Office regulations are." An immigrant's status can be contained in any number of different documents, many of which are highly confusing. "So you might have a scrappy old bit of paper that gave you status, that probably by now doesn't even look genuine", or your paperwork may be with the Home Office, "which isn't very good at returning it." No register of landlords exists, so Teather cannot see how such a system could be policed, meaning the worst landlords "will be the ones saying I'll chance it, what are the chances of them checking?", while only reputable landlords will be "nervous about falling foul of the system".
"We're going to end up in a situation where if you look a bit foreign or sound a bit foreign, you'll struggle to rent a property from a reputable landlord. You're going to end up with an awful lot of people with an absolute right to live here finding that they can't get anywhere to live. What's going to happen to those people? How is that sensible?""We're going to end up in a situation where if you look a bit foreign or sound a bit foreign, you'll struggle to rent a property from a reputable landlord. You're going to end up with an awful lot of people with an absolute right to live here finding that they can't get anywhere to live. What's going to happen to those people? How is that sensible?"
Another proposal would require GPs to check the status of immigrant patients before treating them. "If you stop people going to the GP, they'll go to A&E instead, because A&E is not included in this. What have we spent the last 15 years doing? Trying to get primary care to take responsibility, to prevent people turning up at A&E." Add to that the time and expense it would take for GPs to run checks: "Do the maths. It's not going to save any money."Another proposal would require GPs to check the status of immigrant patients before treating them. "If you stop people going to the GP, they'll go to A&E instead, because A&E is not included in this. What have we spent the last 15 years doing? Trying to get primary care to take responsibility, to prevent people turning up at A&E." Add to that the time and expense it would take for GPs to run checks: "Do the maths. It's not going to save any money."
Last year the coalition introduced a rule that prohibits any Briton earning less than £18,600 from sponsoring a visa for a non-European spouse, rising to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each extra child. "It's just a disaster," Teather despairs. "Lots of British citizens who never expected to be caught up in the immigration system are about to see their families split up. You may have tens of thousands in savings, you may have extremely rich grandparents, your spouse may be a high earner – a whole set of things that would clearly demonstrate that you meet the criteria whereby you'd be no burden on the taxpayer – and yet you're still not allowed to bring your spouse here, because we want to demonstrate that we are bringing numbers down."Last year the coalition introduced a rule that prohibits any Briton earning less than £18,600 from sponsoring a visa for a non-European spouse, rising to £22,400 for families with a child, and a further £2,400 for each extra child. "It's just a disaster," Teather despairs. "Lots of British citizens who never expected to be caught up in the immigration system are about to see their families split up. You may have tens of thousands in savings, you may have extremely rich grandparents, your spouse may be a high earner – a whole set of things that would clearly demonstrate that you meet the criteria whereby you'd be no burden on the taxpayer – and yet you're still not allowed to bring your spouse here, because we want to demonstrate that we are bringing numbers down."
As minister for children and families, she says: "There I was arguing for the importance of early bonding, early intervention – and all being undermined by the Home Office, which was perfectly happy to split families up." The idea that these policies will save money is "patently nonsense", she argues, looking torn between dismay and incredulity. "So what are we trying to do? To drive down the total number of immigrants, irrespective of what's good for Britain. Everything is about getting the net immigration numbers down. That's what's driving this, nothing else. Even though it's obvious that a lot of these people are not a burden on the taxpayer."As minister for children and families, she says: "There I was arguing for the importance of early bonding, early intervention – and all being undermined by the Home Office, which was perfectly happy to split families up." The idea that these policies will save money is "patently nonsense", she argues, looking torn between dismay and incredulity. "So what are we trying to do? To drive down the total number of immigrants, irrespective of what's good for Britain. Everything is about getting the net immigration numbers down. That's what's driving this, nothing else. Even though it's obvious that a lot of these people are not a burden on the taxpayer."
When the spousal visa proposal came before the home affairs cabinet committee, she reveals that Tory members strongly argued for the minimum income threshold to be £40,000. "That would put you in the top 15% of national income!" Part of the problem, she concedes, is the gulf between the life experience of her coalition colleagues, and the reality of the lives they are legislating for.When the spousal visa proposal came before the home affairs cabinet committee, she reveals that Tory members strongly argued for the minimum income threshold to be £40,000. "That would put you in the top 15% of national income!" Part of the problem, she concedes, is the gulf between the life experience of her coalition colleagues, and the reality of the lives they are legislating for.
During discussions to increase the delay in benefits eligibility for the newly unemployed from three to seven days, "there was a general idea that people would have their redundancy payments to get them through". She allows a dry chuckle. "I'm not sure that my constituents coming out of short-term, low-paid work are getting big redundancy packages." But she doesn't believe that ignorance born of privilege is the real problem. "No. I think it's more nakedly political than that. It's about short-term tactics – and I'm deeply uncomfortable with a type of politics that is deliberately using people who are already relatively vulnerable, as outsiders, as a tool to demonstrate how tough we are. I don't like that type of politics."During discussions to increase the delay in benefits eligibility for the newly unemployed from three to seven days, "there was a general idea that people would have their redundancy payments to get them through". She allows a dry chuckle. "I'm not sure that my constituents coming out of short-term, low-paid work are getting big redundancy packages." But she doesn't believe that ignorance born of privilege is the real problem. "No. I think it's more nakedly political than that. It's about short-term tactics – and I'm deeply uncomfortable with a type of politics that is deliberately using people who are already relatively vulnerable, as outsiders, as a tool to demonstrate how tough we are. I don't like that type of politics."
If the problem were merely Tory ignorance, she says that would be relatively easy to solve. "What alarms me is that the immigration proposals feel as if they're hewn from the same rock as welfare earlier in the year, where a lot of that again was about setting up political dividing lines, and trying to create and define an enemy. It's got to a stage where it's almost unacceptable to say anything else, and it bothers me that there is a consensus among the three party leaders that they are all making, well not quite the same speech – there are differences, significant differences – but there's a consensus. It's stifling the rest of the debate, making people afraid to speak. If you get to a stage where there is no alternative voice, eventually democracy's just going to break down."If the problem were merely Tory ignorance, she says that would be relatively easy to solve. "What alarms me is that the immigration proposals feel as if they're hewn from the same rock as welfare earlier in the year, where a lot of that again was about setting up political dividing lines, and trying to create and define an enemy. It's got to a stage where it's almost unacceptable to say anything else, and it bothers me that there is a consensus among the three party leaders that they are all making, well not quite the same speech – there are differences, significant differences – but there's a consensus. It's stifling the rest of the debate, making people afraid to speak. If you get to a stage where there is no alternative voice, eventually democracy's just going to break down."
The coalition's flagship benefit cap has nothing to do with getting people back to work, she maintains. "It's populist. It's a headline. Just look at the evidence. You've got first the overall universal benefit cap, then you've got a 1% welfare cap, and then you've got the big macro welfare cap. So they've found something, a message that works in polling, it's called a benefit cap. And then they've invented policy around it three times."The coalition's flagship benefit cap has nothing to do with getting people back to work, she maintains. "It's populist. It's a headline. Just look at the evidence. You've got first the overall universal benefit cap, then you've got a 1% welfare cap, and then you've got the big macro welfare cap. So they've found something, a message that works in polling, it's called a benefit cap. And then they've invented policy around it three times."
Teather abstained from the vote on the universal benefit cap, and still seems scarred by the decision. "It was a really difficult – a really difficult – decision," she says, her voice dropping low. "Believe me, I reflected on it with every hour there was." More than any other issue? "Yes, more than any other issue – in my life." In the end she decided not to vote against the cap, which would have forced her to resign, "because I had done everything I could possibly do to damage that policy, and at that stage by resigning I would have damaged the government but not the policy." Instead she abstained – and was sacked in the next reshuffle. I ask if the abstention cost her her job and there is a very long pause. "I suspect my views on welfare reform and the way I went about it was probably not unrelated to being reshuffled."Teather abstained from the vote on the universal benefit cap, and still seems scarred by the decision. "It was a really difficult – a really difficult – decision," she says, her voice dropping low. "Believe me, I reflected on it with every hour there was." More than any other issue? "Yes, more than any other issue – in my life." In the end she decided not to vote against the cap, which would have forced her to resign, "because I had done everything I could possibly do to damage that policy, and at that stage by resigning I would have damaged the government but not the policy." Instead she abstained – and was sacked in the next reshuffle. I ask if the abstention cost her her job and there is a very long pause. "I suspect my views on welfare reform and the way I went about it was probably not unrelated to being reshuffled."
Nick Clegg is well aware of Teather's concerns – and she believes he and the party do still largely share them. "But if I'm honest, I'm very worried about our unwillingness to have some of these fights in public, saying, oh, the public's not with us on this, so we'd better do it quietly. We've seen the same polling everyone else has seen, and it's all about the polls."Nick Clegg is well aware of Teather's concerns – and she believes he and the party do still largely share them. "But if I'm honest, I'm very worried about our unwillingness to have some of these fights in public, saying, oh, the public's not with us on this, so we'd better do it quietly. We've seen the same polling everyone else has seen, and it's all about the polls."
Doesn't the leadership have a point? Voters complain that their concerns about immigration have been ignored for years by the political classes. If they can't see their doctor because the waiting room is full of immigrants, isn't it right for Teather's party to take action?Doesn't the leadership have a point? Voters complain that their concerns about immigration have been ignored for years by the political classes. If they can't see their doctor because the waiting room is full of immigrants, isn't it right for Teather's party to take action?
"If someone comes to you with a problem surely you would be trying to fix the thing that is actually causing their problem. That person's worry is that they can't see their doctor. Is it really genuinely the case that everybody in that waiting area is an immigrant with no right to be here? I think it's pretty unlikely. So you need to deal with the problem that people want you to fix, rather than just reacting to what people are immediately saying. Otherwise, it's just going to get worse, and it becomes this self-fulfilling prophecy.""If someone comes to you with a problem surely you would be trying to fix the thing that is actually causing their problem. That person's worry is that they can't see their doctor. Is it really genuinely the case that everybody in that waiting area is an immigrant with no right to be here? I think it's pretty unlikely. So you need to deal with the problem that people want you to fix, rather than just reacting to what people are immediately saying. Otherwise, it's just going to get worse, and it becomes this self-fulfilling prophecy."
Teather has never seen any evidence that a crackdown on immigration reduces public fears. "If anything, in fact, their fear is going up. Public opinion does not exist in a vacuum, and I wonder whether colleagues have any understanding about language and the implications of language. Language is one of the powerful things you have as a politician, and we need to consider that. We forget that language actually forms society – we're integral to it – so people's attitude to their neighbours is formed partly by the things we say on television, and the way in which they are reported. Silence in the face of language that others are using is not enough."Teather has never seen any evidence that a crackdown on immigration reduces public fears. "If anything, in fact, their fear is going up. Public opinion does not exist in a vacuum, and I wonder whether colleagues have any understanding about language and the implications of language. Language is one of the powerful things you have as a politician, and we need to consider that. We forget that language actually forms society – we're integral to it – so people's attitude to their neighbours is formed partly by the things we say on television, and the way in which they are reported. Silence in the face of language that others are using is not enough."
Has her own party been guilty of more than mere silence? Up until now Teather has looked awkward but resolved about criticising her party. Now she looks exquisitely uncomfortable. Pressed further, and with squirming reluctance, she cites a speech by Clegg in May that floated the proposal for an "immigrant bond". "The immigration bond was a slightly potty idea that we as a party had derided when the Labour party took it down off the shelf and dusted it off. But what disappointed me more was the way the speech was briefed. It was briefed that the bond was like a bail payment. Well, that links immigrants to criminals in the public eye." This is her point about the power of language? "Exactly."Has her own party been guilty of more than mere silence? Up until now Teather has looked awkward but resolved about criticising her party. Now she looks exquisitely uncomfortable. Pressed further, and with squirming reluctance, she cites a speech by Clegg in May that floated the proposal for an "immigrant bond". "The immigration bond was a slightly potty idea that we as a party had derided when the Labour party took it down off the shelf and dusted it off. But what disappointed me more was the way the speech was briefed. It was briefed that the bond was like a bail payment. Well, that links immigrants to criminals in the public eye." This is her point about the power of language? "Exactly."
Having devoted her entire youth to parliamentary politics, at 39 Teather could be forgiven for wondering whether it's been worth it. She certainly seems more at home here in the scruffy clamour of her constituency office, deconstructing political rhetoric, than she ever looked in government, defending policy. But so strong is the impression of someone still anxiously self-censoring that I'd say her criticisms should not be mistaken for a tentative first break away from the discipline of party politics.Having devoted her entire youth to parliamentary politics, at 39 Teather could be forgiven for wondering whether it's been worth it. She certainly seems more at home here in the scruffy clamour of her constituency office, deconstructing political rhetoric, than she ever looked in government, defending policy. But so strong is the impression of someone still anxiously self-censoring that I'd say her criticisms should not be mistaken for a tentative first break away from the discipline of party politics.
"Absolutely not," she says emphatically. "No, what I'm talking about is a core value to our party. I want to mobilise debate. If we step back from the things that are core to our values, we will allow public debate to move away from us, and the centre of gravity has moved somewhere else, and then the lack of our distinctive public voice making that argument makes it very difficult for other people who share our view to stand up and be counted.""Absolutely not," she says emphatically. "No, what I'm talking about is a core value to our party. I want to mobilise debate. If we step back from the things that are core to our values, we will allow public debate to move away from us, and the centre of gravity has moved somewhere else, and then the lack of our distinctive public voice making that argument makes it very difficult for other people who share our view to stand up and be counted."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.