British workers will lose out under 'two-tier' tax deal with India, Tories claim

We'll talk about that next time around because we have got Matt Vickers, who is the Shadow Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, as it turns out

Good morning to you, Mr Vickers. Can we start by asking you about this trade deal with India

Do you welcome this free trade agreement? I mean, it's taking advantage of our Brexit freedoms, isn't it? And it's boosting the economy

So we welcome the opportunity to do more trade with countries across the globe

But what we don't welcome is quite where this deal's got to

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We've seen another two-tier agreement coming out of Kia

Do you know what? British workers and British companies across the country are being slammed by Labour's job tax

That increase in national insurance is a huge, huge impact on them

But the people coming here from India under this agreement, they won't be subject to national insurance

They will not be paying a disproportionate number of them in this country in contrast to what we've got there

It is a lose-lose for British taxpayers. I'm interested in what you're saying, Matt. I'm not disagreeing with that at all

So why then, why are we taking these workers? Where do we need them

and are we taking them simply to appease India and say, well, look, and I don't really know how this works

but we're saying we'll take a lot of your people over, give them jobs, let them settle in Britain

if you buy a few crates of whisky from us. I not really sure what the quid pro quo is So the big story here is not necessarily about immigration and such

but it's actually about the fact that people employing British workers in this country

will still be paying national insurance. In fact, they're paying 20% more

They're paying a fortune in tax now, thanks to Labour's jobs tax. But those transferring Indian workers into this country

will be paying less, disincentivising people to come here and employ British workers

It's completely wrong. It's not what people out there voted for. It's not what people out there want

Can I stick with India with you for just a moment? Because we're obviously seeing India and Pakistan escalating overnight

tensions between those two countries. Are you concerned about how this might impact the UK

We've got very large Indian and Pakistani populations in this country. As shadow minister for policing, are you concerned that we could see unrest on the streets here

I think we're deeply concerned by what happens elsewhere in the globe

when it has consequences like that and the dangers coming from people shelling one another

Deeply concerning developments overnight. It's right, well, the government's now got to engage with both countries

get them round the table, open up that dialogue and try and de-escalate this situation before it costs anybody their lives

So what are you proposing, this deportation bill? Tell us what's involved in that and what's that about

So it's game changing. We're saying, as we did in office, that if you come to this country illegally, you should be detained and you should be removed

We saying that anybody who comes to this country should be subject to mandatory age verification i we should use whatever tech and science we got to check what age these people are But more than that we saying that if you commit a crime in this country at the moment if you commit a crime in this country you got to be sentenced to more

than a year before you'll be deported. We're saying if you commit a crime on our turf, you should be

sent back to wherever you came from. And the big problem with that has been the courts and the Human

Rights Act. We're saying we should disapply the Human Rights Act when it comes to cases of

deportation, when it comes to cases of immigration, the Human Rights Act

shouldn't count. It should be about the law that's created in that place and it being served

in the court properly. We haven't heard Kenny Badenock say that. I haven't. Have you heard her say that

Yeah, why have you fallen short of saying, leave the ECHR? Why have you not said that

You've fallen short of that. So in terms of application, in terms of if you look at the cases

that get tied up, the chicken, well, chicken nugget gate, we saw the carry-on

of a guy who should have been deported but made the case that his kids don't like foreign chicken nuggets

and therefore she get to stay. We got to see the case of a paedophile who said if he was returned to his country

he'd face hostility. These were Human Rights Act cases. These were cases that went in our domestic courts

and were rejected on the grounds of human rights. We're saying we will disapply that

This is going to remove that logjam. It's going to allow us to deport those foreign criminals

It's going to allow us to get our immigration system fixed and fit for purpose

But, Matt, I don't really understand how you can disapply. You just say, we're applying it here, we're not applying it next week, we're applying it the week after that

You're either in the ECHR or you're not in it. The Human Rights Act is Britain part in that but actually the law should be decided by the guys in there The guys that the British public watching you this morning are electing people into Parliament to make the law

That should be the law. It should be the law that British people want. It should be the law made by the people they send to Parliament

not by somebody else, hidden away, judges deciding what the law should and shouldn't be

We're saying when it comes to immigration, when it comes to deportation, the law as it stands, as it's created by Parliament

should be upheld, regardless of the Human Rights Act. If someone is up for deportation and they evoke the ECHR Article 8 right to a family life

then you will struggle, and you know this, we've seen it before, haven't we, you will struggle, ultimately fail, to get them on a plane to deport them out of this country

You can't do any of that unless you elect the ECHR. We can. The Human Rights Act, what gives it effect in this country

It's our domestic courts that are the problem in this situation. It is them who are having some of these really, really creative interpretations of the law and binding the two

We're saying that isn't going to be the case anymore. We will not allow that. We will disapply the Human Rights Act

We'll make judges serve the law as it's meant to be served when it comes to immigration and deportation

That's entirely the right thing to do. Interim judgments from Strasbourg would be disapplied

It's the right reform. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you. Actually, it's not a good morning

That's the whole thing. I'm listening and looking at you today and I'm thinking, I thought it was a nice day out

and then he's dressed like Nanook of the North. Winter's back, winter's back. It's a bit chilly

Thank you Matt, appreciate it. Thanks Matt. We had full spring and now we're in fourth winter