Adam Afriyie

Britain has a long and proud history of opening its doors to the vulnerable and oppressed; of welcoming workers, students and tourists from across the world. I believe that Britain is a tolerant and welcoming country. But, right now, we have a big problem with immigration data. UK migration statistics are worryingly inadequate. Between 2001 and 2011, 'official' records were off by 350,000. Without sound evidence it is difficult – if not impossible – to build a full picture of the scale and nature of inward migration to the UK. Policy suffers as a result. How can we plan for the future of schools and hospitals if we don't know how many people might need to use them?

Universal pensioner benefits like the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) cost the Exchequer over £8 billion a year. This is not a massive sum compared to overall government expenditure but it is absurd that every pensioner gets WFA, even cash millionaires. We must face the fact that this is totally wrong. It is morally and economically wrong that lower-paid people are paying for the benefits of millionaires who are more than capable of paying their own fuel bills. In an ideal world we would stop handing out WFA to people who didn’t need it. But that’s not easy or cost-effective. So we need to look carefully at the WFA and other pensioner benefits currently paid to the very wealthy, like the free bus pass and TV license, and come up with innovative ways to manage the payments.

IPSA’s proposed increase in MPs’ salary is another example of how it continues to undermine the standing of parliament whilst haemorrhaging taxpayers’ money on unnecessary backroom bureaucracy. The weekend newspapers reported that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is thinking about raising MPs’ salaries. Whatever your view on the right level of pay for MPs, IPSA has not only failed to tackle the long-term problems of cost and reputation, but has failed to remove the issue from the province of political parties and leaders, as intended. The evidence is clear.

For many people, Budgets are when you find out if your pint of beer or bottle of wine is going up in price. It’s the day you fill up your car just in case fuel goes up again. It’s the day you hope to see a tax cut that puts some more cash in your pocket or helps your business grow. Generally it’s a day the average person lives in hope and prepares to be disappointed. That’s the nature of Budget day. This year is different. They say that this Budget will be highly political. If so, as soon as the doors open, the Commons’ corridors will be buzzing with people feverishly trying to unpack each policy and reverse engineer it. Who was it aimed at? What reaction is it designed to elicit, and from whom?