MP for Windsor
Working Hard For You
We still have no idea how many Romanians and Bulgarians are in the UK

Over recent months press speculation about how many Eastern European migrants are now living in the UK has run riot. Huge figures have been used to back up wild stories and tiny figures have been used to strike back.

But the fact of the matter is, right now, we just don’t have an accurate count of migrants from any country in the European Union; and recently published figures on Romanian and Bulgarian migrants are, ironically, an excellent example of our lack of hard numbers.

Last week it was reported that the number of Romanian and Bulgarian-born people working in the UK had dropped from 144,000 to 140,000 between December and March, defying general predictions of a flood of migrants from Eastern Europe.

These results are based on the Labour Force Survey, carried out by the Office of National Statistics. While these surveys are great for uncovering general working habits, they’re not so good for telling us about small groups of people, like Romanians and Bulgarians. That’s because the number of Romanians and Bulgarians who take part in these surveys is absolutely tiny.

Fewer than 200 Bulgarians and Romanians took part in the survey, meaning that the drop in 4,000 people working in the UK is based on the finding that four of those people had left the country. Just four people – that’s the evidence for the drop in the number of Bulgarians and Romanians in the UK.

As my Conservative colleague Mark Reckless pointed out: “This survey cannot possibly tell us how many Romanians and Bulgarians started working in the UK during the first quarter of this year.” In fact, the ONS warned us similarly, saying that their data “should not be used as a proxy for flows of foreign migrants into the UK”.

This is not to say that journalists and the media are strictly to blame. Journalists can only report on the available figures, and that’s exactly what we lack.

So what does this story tell us? Rather than reveal much about the number of migrants coming to the UK, it tells us a lot more about the sorry state of the UK’s data.

We need to calculate migratory flows more accurately (see last week’s article in The Spectator). This will involve universal entry and exit checks. Only once these are in place can we know the true number of migrants entering and leaving the country.

Both sides of the immigration debate must accept there are severe shortcomings in the way we quantify migration. The Government should find a way of collecting reliable migration data and resist any measures from the EU that prevent us from doing so. If we want answers and full, accurate picture, we need to have proper border checks.


We need better migration data for an effective immigration policy

This morning I wrote an article for The Spectator about the poor state of the UK’s migration data. Our migration estimates are based on a survey taken by as few as 5,000 migrants a year.

We can’t write effective immigration policy without having a clear view of the evidence – good policies depend on good evidence. So I urge the Government to introduce a system of counting people in and out of the country.

Read the article on The Spectator.


My own life story has led me to prize British citizenship – which must be rationed more carefully

British citizenship is one of our most prized possessions. Not only are we part of a civilised and democratic society, subject to the rule of law, but we have access to top-quality healthcare and education. We should not be surprised that so many people, rich and poor, would love to settle here. We are the envy of the world in many ways.

This might sound uncomfortably patriotic. But there’s a reason for that. I am only too aware that I could have been born elsewhere, and not enjoyed the ample benefits and opportunities of British citizenship. My mother was pregnant with me as she returned to Britain after separating from my Ghanaian father. I am sure we can all recognise the intense value of British citizenship. Whether you are a first, third, or 300th-generation immigrant to these islands, go back far enough and we are all in the same boat.

I went on to grow up in social housing in South London, an especially tough upbringing for a child of mixed heritage in 1960s Britain. But perhaps it is because of this background that I understand how people really feel about immigration. It is the pace of change that causes people to feel unsettled, and even more so in these difficult economic times. It is the sense that our neighbourhoods are changing at too rapid a rate; that we cannot understand the languages or cultures around us.

Immigration is not new: Many people cite the arrival of 493 West Africans on the Empire Windrush as the start of mass immigration. But this number is dwarfed by the 3.5 million people that arrived in Britain during the course of the last Labour government. While the Conservative-led government has cut net migration by over a third, people are still worried. We feel powerless in the face of inflexible EU legislation, and concerned about lifting labour movement restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens – especially since unemployment benefit is 2.7 times Bulgaria’s minimum wage.

And we are not the only ones. Germany has expressed similar reservations about the border-free travel zone. In March, Hans-Peter Friedrich, the Interior Minister, told Spiegel newspaper: “The right to freedom of movement means that every citizen of the EU can remain in any member state when he or she studies or works there. Any EU citizen who fulfils that condition is welcome here. But those who only come to receive social welfare, and thus abuse the freedom of movement – they must be effectively prevented from doing so.”

Much of our attitude, and that of many other EU nations, stems from a feeling that people are unjustly securing our prized citizenship without making a fair contribution. When someone joins a company they receive a salary – that is it, they do not automatically get a share in the company. And when someone rents a room from you, they do not automatically get to stay or own part of your home. We would never expect to become citizens elsewhere without possessing some historic connection or meeting some strict criteria, and rightly so. We must tackle this injustice, and be seen to do so, if people are to engage with politicians seriously again.

Different types of immigration

The current immigration debate is marred with negative connotations because distinct groups of immigrants are incorrectly lumped together and tarred with the same brush: Illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, those working here legally on work visas, tourists and students. We must treat each as a distinct group.

  • First, illegal immigrants must be deported. Full stop.
  • Second, asylum seekers: We must help genuinely persecuted people, but, where possible, we should discourage in-country applications and continuous in-country appeals. It should be possible to allow asylum seekers to apply at British embassies in safe countries nearest where they are fleeing. All too often we see people travel vast distances—across continents and other safe countries—to end up in the UK, and become entangled in long appeal processes that are eventually unsuccessful. Additionally, with proper restrictions in place, asylum seekers should be allowed to work and pay their way while living in the country.
  • Third, proper policies must be implemented that allow people working here on work visas to contribute to the wealth of the UK and avoid placing a burden on public services.
  • Finally, tourists and students must be welcomed with open arms. I want to see as many tourists visiting Britain as possible because every penny they spend helps our economy and every visit they make creates goodwill around the world. I also want to see international students paying fees and studying here, before returning home or applying for work visas. There is still hard work to be done, but Theresa May and Damian Green have done a laudable job clamping down on bogus colleges.

Citizenship must be carefully rationed

But what confounds rational debate and makes people foam with anger is immigrants’ almost automatic right to apply for British citizenship – sometimes by virtue of having lived here for as little as three years. To add some perspective: in Switzerland, residents must have lived in the country for at least 12 years, and the local community get a binding vote on all citizenship applications.

We must sever any form of automatic link between working in the UK and attaining citizenship. We must also increase the length of time it takes before a right of settlement can be considered. Nobody expects to qualify to become a Swiss national because, and only because, they have lived there for while – there is a lot more to it than that.

These two concepts need to be separated. On the one hand, we must build a vibrant economy through welcoming workers, tourists and students provided they pay their way. On the other, we must protect and ration the prize of British citizenship.

No doubt, this will take political will and grit, but we are still a sovereign nation. We need to renegotiate the terms of our EU membership – or withdraw. We must make it clear that we reject the concept of some pan-European citizenship which threatens to steam roll the culturally-rich identities of Britain and our European colleagues. And, of course, we must choose our words carefully to avoid the dog-whistle accusations of racism.

It is to our credit that hundreds of thousands of people want to become British citizens. It is a mark of our international standing as a tolerant, welcoming, vibrant and exciting nation that offers opportunities to all regardless of heritage or nationality. But we must stop flattering ourselves and start acting more business-like. We cannot keep welcoming everyone at the expense of our own citizens. Now is the time to take control so that we have a country at ease with itself – so we have an integrated, fully functional society with a bright future.


Improving Migration Population Statistics

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative):
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the Office for National Statistics has met the four participating local authorities in the Improving Migration Population Statistics programme; and what the outcome was of those meetings.

John Healey (Financial Secretary, HM Treasury; Wentworth, Labour):
The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.

Letter from Colin Mowl, dated 24 May 2006:

The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking on how many occasions the Office for National Statistics has met the four participating local authorities in the Improving Motion and Population Statistics: (DS) project, and what was the outcome of those meetings. I am replying in her absence.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is currently working in partnership with four Local Authorities (LAs) to investigate whether there are local data sources that could be used to assist the compilation of the nationally produced population estimates. The four LAs are Barnet Derby Hammersmith & Fulham and Welwyn Hatfield. These authorities were selected from four groupings of LAs which each scored highly on different characteristics associated with difficulties in estimating population accurately.

Initial meetings were held with the four selected LAs in December 2005 and January 2006. At these meetings each of the LAs agreed to work with ONS to gain a better understanding of how they use the population estimates, what other local information and data sources they use, what particular issues affect population estimates within their LA and what methods and local data sources they use to overcome these issues.

A further round of meetings is currently underway to review progress and a final round of meetings will be held at the end of the studies in summer 2006. ONS will review the findings to see if any improvements can be applied to the mid-year population estimates processes or quality assurance procedures, either for all LAs or for groups of LAs. ONS will publish the outcome of the studies and evaluate their success, including a review of the criteria and approach for selecting LAs.


Windsor MP asks questions on immigration

Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(1) what estimate he has made of the number of residents in Slough issued with new national insurance numbers in each of the last five years for which data are available;

(2) how many people from new EU member states countries have registered in Slough for new national insurance numbers in each of the last five years.

James Plaskitt (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Warwick and Leamington, Labour): Information as to how many residents of Slough were issued with new national insurance numbers is not available. Information regarding the number of applications for national insurance numbers administered in Slough is in the table.

Applications for national insurance numbers administered in Slough

September-02 to March-03 2,651
April-03 to March-04 5,127
April-04 to March-05 5,388
April-05 to November-05 5,203


The available information regarding the number of national insurance numbers issued in Slough to people from the new EU Accession states is in the table.

National insurance numbers issued in Slough to people from EU Accession states

October-04 to March-05 362
April-05 to November-05 1,986


1. The new EU Accession states entered the EU from May 2004.

2. Figures on the number of national insurance numbers issued to people from EU Accession states are only available from October 2004.