IN the House of Lords last week the Archbishop of Canterbury said: “There is room and requirement for greater generosity in our nation’s hospitality to refugees.” I read his whole speech three times but failed to discover what he means. Does “generosity” mean we should take in more refugees or does it mean we should make better provision for them? Perhaps the Archbishop meant both? It would have been helpful to know.

On the same day that Justin Welby made his speech, the Government announced immigration levels will require the creation of 95,000 new houses every year. The building programme provides for 200,000 homes annually, so this means that almost half the new properties will go to immigrants. Moreover, the building programme is not being achieved – and by a long chalk.

The housing shortage is severe – the worst it’s been for more than forty years – and the consequence is a sharp and continuous rise in house prices. This means that more and more of the indigenous population are unable to afford to buy a house, which in turn increases demand for rented property, which is also in short supply.

I fear for social cohesion when it dawns on the native population that half the new homes built will go to immigrants. I am not the only one to express such fears. Lord Green of Deddington, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, says of the housing forecast: “These figures illustrate the huge impact on housing demand that immigration at current levels will generate. This will have serious consequences for our environment and for the whole of our infrastructure. It is now absolutely obvious that immigration must be sharply reduced and this must include immigration from the EU.”

David Cameron pledged three years ago to reduce immigration to “tens of thousands”. This has not happened and there’s no chance that it will happen – because the EU will not allow it. And, even if the EU were to change its rules and permit the limitation of immigration, how, practically, would we go about achieving this? I listened in shock to a BBC File on Four programme which revealed that we don’t actually have an accurate figure for the numbers coming in, our borders are porous and illegal immigration is out of control. Continuous massive immigration will put great strain on our infrastructure. “Infrastructure” is a bureaucratic word which, translated into English, means schools, the NHS and the social services – everything in the lived environment from traffic levels to the water supply. We are already seeing the consequences as our schools and hospitals fail to cope with the increased demand. As they say in the jargon, the present state of affairs is not sustainable. In plain language, this means there are shortages, and when shortages become acute and chronic, people start to squabble and fight for what they see as their rightful share

I mentioned the threat to social cohesion and I hear many voices crying that our decision to bomb Syria will lead to more unrest here at home – involving what are euphemistically referred to as “communities”. But a far greater threat to our wellbeing will be the failure to provide the houses, schools, health and social care for an ever-increasing population. There will be trouble ahead. It is not “fascist” or “far right” to say these things – Lord Green is not a fascist. I believe I am stating the obvious in the light of the facts.

If the immigration crisis is not resolved, the character of our country will be changed irrevocably, and for the worse.