Migration Statistics

Debate between Nigel Evans and Andrew Turner

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Turner]

That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.

I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to use data held by other countries. The Government are hamstrung by EU free movement legislation, which prevents their gathering information on why people from EU countries are coming to the UK and how long they intend to stay.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the normal price for a visa is £83, but for people staying a year or more the price is £300? That is a substantial sum. Surely some of that visa money should be allocated to ensuring that we have proper software and data collection systems in place. I do not apologise for going back to make certain that people are welcomed when they come into the United Kingdom via our airports. We want to ensure that people, particularly tourists, are not kept unduly in long queues while we collect the data that are necessary for us to have accurate information.

[Mr Turner]

We should be able to collect the data rapidly, as we all recognise. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering what can be done. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to make all possible information available to the ONS to help it improve its statistical analysis of migration figures. I ask him to keep in mind possible sources of information that might help the ONS and make those sources of information available, and to do so even when he is not being held directly to account by the Public Administration Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the whole House or even those who sit in another place. I hope he is able to assure me that he will do so.

People across the UK, whatever their political persuasion, welcome the Government’s aim to cut immigration. In 2003, I made it clear that growing immigration levels would have an effect on the already overstretched jobs market, as well as on the public services to which immigrants would become entitled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) echoed my statement. There is huge demand for housing in our cities and larger towns, with consequent movement into more rural towns, which was called “white flight.” My statement followed the admission of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that he “hadn’t a clue” about the number of illegal immigrants in the UK.

Even some of those on the Opposition Benches now decry Labour’s disastrous policy of opening this country’s doors to all comers—a policy with no mandate, implemented in secret. Andrew Neather, a former Government adviser, suggested that Labour’s policy was

“to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

Labour conducted its affairs privately so that, by encouraging mass migration, it would not alienate its core working-class vote. Such actions are neither acceptable nor beneficial to the country in any way.

The Labour Government brought two and a half cities the size of Birmingham—a total of almost 3 million people—to this country without breathing a word. There is little doubt that we have made significant progress in putting better controls in place and repairing some of the damage, but we need accurate statistics that demonstrate that our policies are working. So as well as knowing who is coming in, we need to know who is leaving. I hope the Home Secretary’s expectation that full exit checks will be in place by next year is met.

I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I understand how difficult a job my hon. Friend the Minister and his Conservative predecessors have had. They inherited a right old muddle, and sorting it out was never going to be easy or quick, but if people are to have confidence in migration statistics, those statistics need to chime with the reality of people’s day-to-day experiences. At present, the statistics simply do not do that, so I particularly welcome the Government’s sensible and positive response to the Committee’s recommendations on communicating the statistics to the public better. These are complex issues, but improvements in communicating the data will help the public to understand them better and lead to more informed debate, which is something we will all welcome.

Congenital Cardiac Services for Children

Debate between Nigel Evans and Andrew Turner

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I shall confine my speech to issues that uniquely affect my constituents. The Safe and Sustainable consultation is fundamentally flawed. Three of the four options envisage the closure of the Southampton centre. Those options are based on wrong assumptions and inaccurate data. Let me set out the background. The consultation document states:

“All options must be able to meet the minimum requirement to collect a child by ambulance…within three hours of being contacted by the referring unit”.

It then examined “detailed access mapping” using train and road journeys—that is important—and considered how existing networks were affected. More options that did not meet the “three hours” criteria were ruled out. Bristol is included in “all viable options” because south-west Cornwall and south Wales are more than three hours away from either Southampton or Birmingham.

Unfortunately, nobody in that expert team seems to have noticed that people cannot travel by train or road from the Isle of Wight. There is a clue in the name: it is an island, separated from the mainland by the Solent. I have said before that the ferries provide lifeline services for my constituents, but in this case that is literal. The error in the data was that because we must cross the Solent by ferry, the island is more than three hours away from either Bristol or London.

In May, that was pointed out to Mr Jeremy Glyde, the programme director of the Safe and Sustainable review. A statement issued on 3 June said that the team

“based retrieval times between the island and the mainland on travel by air. This was an oversight”

because the policy is

“to retrieve children from the Isle of Wight by road and ferry”.

That is very odd, because the consultation document explicitly states:

“Air travel has not been considered because it cannot always be relied upon”.

The statement goes on to say that

“an ambulance must reach the referring hospital within 3 hours, or within 4 hours in ‘remote areas’”.

The conclusion was that

“it is sensible to measure retrieval times to the Isle of Wight against the threshold for ‘remote areas’.”

On remote areas, the consultation document states:

“Removing surgery from some centres could have a disproportionate impact on children in some remote areas because ambulances would not be able to reach the child in three hours or less”—

meaning three hours or less from Southampton in my case.

On 3 June, Mr Glyde did not say why the Isle of Wight suddenly became a “remote area” when previously it was not. I am sure it did not move without me or any of the other 130,000 residents noticing. I asked Mr Glyde to point me to the guidelines that determine when an area is designated as “remote”. He told me that it was a “subjective interpretation” and that the review board recognised that the island,

“by its very nature, is remote from the mainland”.

Of course, that is accurate, but the board should have noticed earlier. After starting the consultation and working on it for years, it suddenly struck the board that there are

“unique factors around retrieval times by ferry”.

My Glyde was very helpful. He explained:

“We have been able to generate potential scenarios that could enable the ambulance to meet the standards”.

They did so not by using the “three hours” standard set out in the consultation, but by deciding that the “four hours” will apply to the newly remote Isle of Wight. It may be possible to generate scenarios in which an ambulance from Bristol or London can get to the island in four hours. I can generate some scenarios in which I become Prime Minister. Neither possibility can be entirely ruled out, but they do not reflect what is likely to happen in real life—[Hon. Members: “No!”]

Putting aside my political future, let us examine some realities. The AA route planner shows that it takes two hours to get to the other side of the Isle of Wight, and an hour at least—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Nigel Evans and Andrew Turner

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to have abused the Members of the House of Lords in the form that he chose?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is most certainly not a point of order for me. I am sure that there are other ways in which the hon. Gentleman can express his views, and I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister—like the Minister who is present—will be well aware of what has just been said. Please, Mr Harper, continue.