Mr Carney did not blush or look embarrassed when he told us the UK could enter a recession as a result of Brexit. It was an absurd forecast, but he was  careful to use the word “could” rather than the word “would” when making it.

Could the UK go into recession in the next two years? I can see no way it could do so if we leave the EU. I could  see it doing so if there was a general world recession, or if there was a sudden and serious flare up in the Euro crisis with the collapse of the Euro area economy, but not if we decide to repatriate our EU contributions, our fish and the other matters that make our position worse by being in the EU.

The Bank should set out the positive impact of spending our own money on our own priorities. Spending the £10 bn of net contribution we do not currently get back here at home would be a 0.6% boost to our economy. It would mean more jobs and more incomes earned here in the UK, so more growth. Where was that obvious fact in Mr Carney’s thinking?

Then there would be the improvement in the balance of payments for the same reason – we would no longer have to send all that money abroad. Wouldn’t that have a favourable impact on the value of the pound?

Mr Carney decided to kitchen sink the bad news forecast. He told us we could have a  recession. We could have output down, inflation up, and pound down all at the same time. How come? If the pound fell substantially that would boost exports and therefore boost UK output. As the Bank has already told us it would cut interest rates in such a scenario and would look through any temporary imported inflation from a lower pound, he should also be forecasting the positive output effects of the lower rates and extra money creation he has told us he has  in mind.

It was an extraordinary muddled forecast. Most commentators and forecasters do not expect a world recession or a major Euro crisis or a Chinese crisis anytime soon. Without one or more of those the UK will not enter a recession. Out of the EU we will keep our trade. Out of the EU the main car makers have already told us they will carry on investing here. Out of the EU there will be a small fiscal boost to the UK’s output and balance of payments as we spend our own money on our own priorities.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the number of national insurance numbers issued to EU migrants.

The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire): For years, UK migration figures have been measured independently according to agreed United Nations definitions. Today’s report by the independent Office for National Statistics is a clear endorsement of the validity of those figures. I welcome the clarity that the ONS has provided on this important issue, and am glad to have the opportunity to clear up some of the misconceptions about the figures for national insurance numbers and what those may mean for EU migration.

On 7 March this year, the Office for National Statistics published a note explaining why long-term international immigration figures could differ from the number of national insurance number registrations, concluding that the two series are likely to differ. At the same time, the ONS undertook to conduct further analysis of the issue. It has published its conclusions this morning; I stress that that is independent work carried out by an independent statistics authority. Its conclusions are clear. The ONS has now stated that the difference between the number of long-term EU migrants and the number of national insurance registrations by EU nationals can largely be accounted for by short-term EU migration to the UK, and that the independent international passenger survey remains “the best source of information for measuring” net migration. The ONS also says that national insurance figures are “not a good measure” of levels of migration, even if they are helpful for understanding patterns of migration.

A national insurance number can be obtained by anyone working in the UK for just a few weeks, and the ONS explains clearly that the number of national insurance registrations should not be compared with migration figures because they measure entirely different things. Short-term migrants have never been included in the long-term migration statistics, which are governed by UN definitions. There have always been short-term migrants who are not picked up in those statistics, but short-term migration will not have an impact on population growth and population pressures, as by definition short-term migrants leave the UK within 12 months of arriving.
The Government look forward to the ONS’s follow-up note later in the year, which will set out its analysis in greater detail. We must now be careful not to distort the figures following the ONS’s clear statement. I welcome its conclusions, which I hope provide reassurance to those concerned that national insurance data could suggest that the published migration statistics were inaccurate.

The Government take very seriously the need to reduce net migration to long-term sustainable levels, from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. We have taken a number of steps to achieve that, of which the Immigration Bill, which completed its parliamentary passage this week, is just the latest. Clear and accurate statistics are integral to what we are seeking to achieve. I am pleased that today the ONS has, with its normal impartiality, confirmed that the statistics based on the international passenger survey that we use have the necessary integrity and remain the best measure for understanding net migration.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but does he not accept that the very popular programme of making a substantial reduction in net migration that he, I and other Conservative MPs stood on at the general election is quite impossible to honour as a promise given the Government’s own figures for migration, never mind the figures for national insurance? Migration has been running well above the maximum total that we suggested to the electorate. Does that not show that all the time we stay in the European Union we cannot control EU migration in the way we promised at the general election? Does the big difference between the national insurance numbers and the migration figures have implications that will worry Members across the House, given the impact on public services?

Over five years, 1.2 million additional people came to the UK, got a job and a national insurance number, and lived here for a considerable time, even if some of them have now departed. Those people needed doctors surgeries, school places for their children, and so on. In the past two years, an additional 1.1 million people have registered for GP services. That implies that national insurance numbers are closer to the truth, and that we need to consider those figures as well as the formal migration numbers when planning public provision.

Does the Minister share my concern that we are not offering a sufficiently good welcome in terms of GP places, health facilities and school places, and that that is putting a lot of pressure on settled communities and not offering something good to the newcomers? Does he share my wish to get a grip on that, so that we can properly plan our public services? The note that was slipped out—fortunately Mr Speaker allowed this urgent question—does not explain that discrepancy or deal with the fundamental point that if someone comes here, works and gets a national insurance number, we must provide public facilities for them.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to clarify those points, and today’s statement from the ONS is clear. As Glen Watson, the deputy national statistician for population and public policy, said: “We are confident the International Passenger Survey remains the best available way of measuring long-term migration to the UK.”

My right hon. Friend correctly highlighted the pressure on public services, and the Government remain committed to reducing net migration to the long-term sustainable levels that existed before the previous Labour Government. We remain focused on achieving that, which is why we have taken steps to reform the visa system and to confront illegal migration. Measures in the Immigration Bill, which the House approved earlier this week, are pivotal to that.

The ONS is clear that we should not be looking at national insurance numbers for an assessment of the pressures of migration. Some have suggested that leaving the EU will in some way deal with the migration issue, but we need only consider the examples of other countries that have decided to be outside the EU yet have free movement and pay into the EU budget. There is an idea that things would be better outside the EU, but I find it inconceivable that we would have access to the single market and not have those issues of free movement.

We must also stress the important achievements of the Prime Minister in his renegotiation, and in putting the welfare brake into effect and dealing with some of those pull factors, as well as important steps on deregulation. He secured important elements in that renegotiation for the benefit not just of the UK, but of the EU as a whole. We must grow that economy and see other European nations succeeding and creating jobs and employment in the way that this country has done. I recognise the concerns that my right hon. Friend has rightly highlighted about public services. Those issues remain a concern of this Government, but we have taken, are taking and will continue to take action to see net migration figures reduce to sustainable levels, and to address concerns about public services and the pressures on our communities.

Yesterday I raised in the Commons the issue of the government figures for EU migrants. In recent years the government has issued many more National Insurance numbers to EU migrants than it has counted as  migrants in its official migration figures. Over the last five years to June 2015 1.2m more NI numbers were issued than identified inward migrants.

The government says this can be explained by the fact that many people come in for short term jobs and then go home again. A migrants is defined as someone who stays for more than one year. My point is the government needs more accurate figures than its passenger surveys to capture how many people need GPs, school places and other public services. The passenger survey clearly understates numbers by a large margin, and leaves us short of public service provision. The ONS report admitted short term stayers were not the only reason the two figures diverge so much, and have promised a further report, presumably after the Referendum. The government also needs to grasp that if someone comes, gets a job and an NI number and stays for most of the year they may well need a home,  school places for their children and a GP.

Asking a random selection of people at the ports why they have entered the UK leads to a large underestimate of how many people come to live here, and an  large underestimate of our needs of public services. People may tell the official on arrival they intend to stay for a short time but change their minds once here. The officials may not sample correctly, as of course the migrants are a small proportion of all those entering at a  busy port.

I will post the Hansard report of the exchange this morning.

If I had to name one industry that had been worst hit by EU membership it would be the UK fishing industry. Placed under a Common Fishing Policy from the early days, the EU has done grave damage to what was one of our most impressive ventures. The UK has been driven from self sufficiency and good exports of fish to import dependence. We have had to watch as non UK boats have come into our waters under EU licence and taken the majority of the catch.

 

In the early days of the Common Fishery Policy too much fish was taken, doing further damage to the fishery. When the EU awoke to the damage being done, tougher quotas were imposed which favoured non UK fishing fleets, especially the French. If we look at the 2015 quota allocations for the main areas for cod and haddock they show (VIIbc,VIIe-k,VIII,IX,X, CECAF 34.1.1):

 

Cod   France 70-84% of Total Allowable catch

UK 7.6-9.2%

 

Haddock   France 55-66.7% of Total Allowable catch

UK 10-29%

Sole         France   14.3% to 54%

UK 0-19%

The great fishing fleets of Grimsby, Hull, Lowestoft have been slashed by the decline of the fishery and unfair distribution of the quota. Out of the EU the UK can reassert control out to 200 miles or to the median line with a neighbouring state. We can negotiate shared access with neighbours without being outvoted by 27 other member states under the majority voting system of the EU.

Freed of EU control we could have a policy which helps restore our fishery and allocates more catch to UK vessels.

 

(Figures taken from ec.Europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/poster tac2015 en.pdf)

My contribution to Monday’s debate on the EU Referendum Leaflet:

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The Government document is a disgrace. It is morally wrong, it is financially wrong and I think that it will backfire on them politically, which is the only good news in this otherwise rather sad debate. We should not need to do this. Any British democratic Government should understand that we want to have fair elections and referendums, and that we have a long tradition of not taking taxpayers’ money to spend in promotion of party political purposes or other political purposes during an election or referendum. In my experience, no Government have ever taken taxpayers’ money close to an election to propagandise for party policies. Nor should this Government be taking money from the many taxpayers who wish to leave the European Union in order to spend it on propaganda to try to thwart their wishes.

I was proud to stand in the general election on a platform of offering people a free choice and a free vote, after all these years when we have had no right to such a thing, and it is a great pity that it is being sullied by taking money from taxpayers and spending it in the distorting way that others have already mentioned.

I know that many other colleagues wish to speak, so I will concentrate on just two matters. This leaflet is extremely misleading and part of a very misleading campaign that is based on fear and misinformation about our relationship with the EU and what the EU is doing to us. The two claims in the leaflet that I wish to highlight go together in some ways. The leaflet says that we now have “a special status” and that often we can get our own way as a result of that special status. So I thought I would look at three crucial areas and ask, “Do we have a special status and are we getting our way?” Those areas are our right to choose our own taxes; our right to control our own borders; and our right to decide what benefits to give to which people who live in our community. All previous Governments who have negotiated treaties have always solemnly promised Parliament that we still had complete control over what taxes we raised, complete control over what benefits we chose to spend our money on and complete control over our borders. I am afraid, however, that none of those things is true.

Let us take part of the negotiation—this special status. We were told that, as a result of the negotiation, changes would be made to the VAT system. It is clearly the settled will of this Parliament that the tampon tax should be abolished, and it is clearly illegal under European law to do so. It is also clear that last summer our European Union Commission took our Government to court and successfully prosecuted them for daring to set the VAT rate on green products—insulation, all sorts of boiler controls and other things that promote the green agenda—at 5% instead of at the full VAT rate, and of course the Commission successfully won that court case. So our Government are now under a legal requirement of the European Court of Justice to put our VAT up to 20%, although of course they have not done so before the referendum because it would be embarrassing and tedious for them to do so.

We were then told that this new special status means that that is going to change, so that we will not have to put up our VAT on green products and we will be able to get rid of the VAT on tampons. So I looked at the document that the EU has now issued following the negotiation to see whether that is indeed the case.
The first thing to note is that the consultation that the EU is holding on VAT reform is mainly about centralising and taking more powers to Brussels over VAT, not giving more powers to member states. The second thing to note is that the document makes absolutely no reference whatever to the EU-UK agreement, or to the special status that we asked for and we were told we had got on VAT. The third thing is that, in the talismanic last couple of paragraphs about whether it might be possible to offer more freedom to member states to choose their own rates of VAT, no mention is made of the rates that we wish to remove or keep low and no guarantee is offered that there will be any legislation forthcoming. Again, the document says that it is terribly important not to have tax competition within the single market and very important to have a central policy that has political support.

One has to read that document to understand that there is absolutely no agreement on special status and no agreement at all that the UK can choose its own VAT rates. That is a broken promise. Also, we are told by the Treasury that we will lose a series of court cases on corporation tax again in this Parliament. We lost many such cases in the last Parliament and it cost £7 billion of revenue, which the British Parliament wished to raise on corporations but had to give back, and the Treasury forecast is that we will lose another £7 billion in this Parliament in losing court cases in the ECJ.

The Treasury has never suggested that this new special status will prevent that. Therefore, it is quite obvious that we cannot raise taxes from companies where we want to and we cannot cut taxes on consumers where we want to, and that we have no “special status”.

If one then asks, “Is there a special status on borders?”, the answer is, “No, of course, there isn’t.” We are governed by the freedom-of-movement provisions and that means we have to allow in anyone who can get a job or who is seeking work under the provisions of the freedom-of-movement clauses. The Government, who made a solemn promise to the electors to reduce the number of migrants coming into the country—so that we can catch up with the need for more school places, more GP surgeries, more hospital capacity, more roads and more houses for people—are unable to fulfil that pledge in any way, and the Treasury has now admitted that that pledge is for the birds over the five years of this Parliament and all the way out to 2030. Goodness knows why the Treasury thought it could forecast to 2030, because it cannot even forecast for this year, let alone to 2030.

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): My right hon. Friend has just made a fantastic point about the lack of transparency. Does he share my concern? An independent report states that 3.5 million people are expected to come in by that time—it will probably be considerably more than that—but there is no indication to the British people where they are going to go, and it is calculated that a quarter of a million acres of extra developed land will be required to provide the housing for those people coming in.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is right—there is absolutely no proper provision for the very large number of people that the Treasury now admits are likely to come in. That is one of the few Treasury forecasts that I might believe. It is quite obvious that it could not forecast its own public spending, its own interest rates or anything in the recent Office for Budget Responsibility and Treasury documents. It had to make another revision again in the March Budget—it revised the forecast made in November—because it had found it difficult to grasp how the world might change between November and March. So there is this inability to forecast the economic numbers, but for once I think the Treasury may be honest in forecasting a substantial increase in migration. I suspect that the Treasury’s estimate is an underestimate because it has been constantly underestimating these figures in recent years, and it proves that we have no control over our borders and no “special status” whatsoever.

The third area is benefits. The Prime Minister made a great deal about benefits in the renegotiation; it was one of the few areas where he really pushed quite hard to get reform in the way that Britain wanted. I think both major parties campaigning in the last election wanted, for example, to no longer have to pay child benefit to children who are not resident in our country, but apparently that is something that we cannot negotiate. There is no “special status” to allow us to decide that child benefit should go to children living in our country rather than to children living elsewhere. There is some kind of fudge whereby we could pay the benefit at the level that applies in that country, which means in some cases that we will have to pay a higher level of benefit, although in other cases it means we will pay a lower level of benefit. So there is absolutely no control there.

Again, both major parties wanted amendments so that people coming here to work under the freedom-of-movement provisions would not automatically get the full range of benefits until they had been here for a bit and made some kind of contribution. We were not able to get a guarantee on that, either. There is some sort of four-year clause as a temporary expedient, but the benefits have to be phased in over the four years and the negotiating aim was not met.

On the big three things, therefore, which all independent democratic countries control through their Parliaments and Governments, Britain is unable to exert control: we cannot decide what taxes to impose; we cannot decide what benefits to spend our money on; and we cannot control our own borders. So I have to submit that the Government are completely misrepresenting the position when they say that they have negotiated a “special status”. They are completely wrong when they say that shows we can get our own way. They could not even get their own way on a very limited number of negotiating objectives at a point when they were threatening withdrawal and a referendum, so how will they ever get their way at all once the referendum is out of the way if, by any chance, the British people have not seen
through this and voted to stay?

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): Does the right hon. Gentleman find it strange that, although the Government claim to have special status on some issues—and he has proved they have not gained such status—they refer time and again to things that we have opted out of? They make a case for joining Europe, but they boast that through our special status, “We opt out of this, we opt out of the euro, we opt out of border controls—we opt out of a whole range of things”. The Government are actually making a case for staying clear of the European project.

John Redwood: I agree. I always liken it to someone joining a football club and then announcing truculently that they have no wish to play football or watch football, getting cross when they go to club functions and people talk about football, and wanting to reduce the club subscription because, as they do not join in the football, they think they are overpaying. That is what the Government are doing to Europe.

They do not want to join the single currency or Schengen, or the quota system for refugees. They do not like political union being talked about, although that is the EU’s main purpose, and they think that the club subscription is too large. They are right about one thing: the club subscription is far too large for us because we do not believe in practically any of the club’s purposes. Most of us would draw the conclusion, however, that the simplest thing to do would be to leave the club and spend the subscription on things we do like.

I awoke this morning to the Today programme telling me how difficult negotiating a better deal on fish will be than the dreadful system we currently suffer under. No surprises there then . We were told that a “pound will buy you 0.79 Euros!”

Do these people know nothing about EU/UK business? This morning a pound bought you around 1.26 Euros or 60% more than the BBC pro EU rate. Talk about selling the UK short again.

The BBC  went on to put the word “free” in front of single market. What exactly is free about all the contributions the UK has to pay and the rules we have to obey?

Project Fear is now caricaturing itself.  Is mighty Luxembourg to mobilise against Holland if the UK leaves the EU?  Is Spain to launch a new Armada? Will France and Germany suddenly drop sixty years of working together  building a political union because the UK has opted out of their constitutional construction?  Of course not. These are all peace loving democracies, tied together in the defence alliance of NATO, with a common interest in avoiding war.

If the UK stays in the EU will peace suddenly be restored to Ukraine, when it was the EU/Ukraine Agreement that provoked Russia into its illegal grab of Crimea? Will the EU learn from its blunders intervening in the former Yugoslavia where it did anything but keep the peace?

We should expect the next move to be concerted action to get the pound to fall, and to talk up any bad news about the UK economy. The Remainian government has had one attempt with the Bank of England to talk the pound down, only to see it rise from end February to last week as the polls moved more in favour of Brexit. They will probably try again. They are desperate to tell us anything bad about the Uk economy and then to blame fears of Brexit for it.

They have decided to contradict themselves on interest rates. They both tell us that mortgage rates will go up if we leave, and they tell us the Bank will cut interest rates on Brexit to deal with the short term uncertainties! If you are going to make up a good fib of fear, at least agree one and stick to it. Arguing on  both sides of the fears serves to remind people that they cannot believe a word they  say.

The Treasury, Bank, IMF and the other powerful bodies that now want to talk the pound down and scorn the UK should we leave are of course famous for their incompetence at forecasting the results of European economic policies. These were the organisations  who told the UK  to enter the Exchange Rate Mechanism which caused a big recession. None of them forecast the damage their dangerous policy produced. They also favoured entering the Euro , and issued no warnings about the obvious damage to employment and output which the Euro would do to many of its members. They did not forecast the 2011 Euro crisis.

Do not believe a word of their bad forecasts. The US economy has slowed more than ours, so is that Brexit? The Chinese economy has slowed. Is that Brexit?  The oil price collapsed last year having a big impact – was that Brexit?

Of course not. The world economy is largely unaffected by the issue of whether we remain or stay. Our trade is not at risk. We will be better off out when we have our own money to spend on jobs and output here at home.

On Saturday I had my first chance to canvass door to door just on Brexit, with the local elections and the Police Commissioner elections behind us. It was very different to canvassing in support of individual candidates for office.

Many more people wanted to answer the door and engage in conversation on the topic. Many more wished to test out their current thoughts on UK membership of the EU. More were grateful that I had troubled to call, and were very friendly to us  volunteers delivering the leaflets and putting the case. This probably reflects the obvious point that none of us are motivated by self interest in the way a candidate and party seeking  office is partly motivated by the wish to take on a job. An MP or Councillor campaigning on one side of the referendum is clearly running the risk of annoying some voters when he or she need not do so, because he or she believes in the cause they are  supporting.

The national polls seem to be right in several respects. People who want to leave feel much more strongly about it than most of those who might vote to stay. They are more determined in their vote and more determined to vote. Older voters are more likely to be for leave than younger voters, though there are plenty of young voters who want out. Few people who remain like the EU or  buy into the idea of political, economic and monetary union. Most who say they may vote to stay do so out of fear that the economy could be damaged, reflecting the lies and absurd fears put about by the Remain side.

Most people who want out that I spoke to majored their case on the wish to restore control over our own laws and decisions. The best reason I heard was someone who began by saying he was a businessman and took a  business  view of the issue. He had found his own business had been damaged by an EU law, so he now saw the EU as unhelpful, leading in his case directly to a loss of jobs and activity.

Many of the  possible Remain voters are unsure of their position and open to persuasion. Many do not like many features of the organisation and want to stay opted out of much of it as possible. All of you who believe in leaving need to help us get out the leaflets and talk to the voters. There are  not many days left before the postal votes at the end of this month, and many people who would appreciate a call and a talk. If the media wont give us the airtime to explain how we will be better off out, we need to do it door by door.

 

(Apologies for late posting – I tried to post this under local pages as well and it seems it only appeared there. )

 

I wish Mr Khan well as London’s new Mayor. He said the right things on taking office when he said he  wishes to govern for all Londoners, and recognised the great strengths of the city he now administers. He then went on to spoil it by attacking the Conservatives after beating them and falling out further with Mr Corbyn.

I confess that I did not  help Mr Goldsmith in the closing days of his London campaign, despite plenty of requests to do so. I have known Zac for several years during his time as an MP and always found him good company with a gentle approach and good Eurosceptic views. I did not understand the nature of the campaign fought in his name with its heavy negative bias and its constant challenges to the Labour candidate. I did not wish to go campaigning on that basis. Clearly it did not work, with Conservatives  starting from behind and remaining well behind. The incumbents first contrived to look like the challengers, and then to look like  losers.

As a part time resident of London who works a lot in Westminster I wanted to hear a positive vision of what London will look like in  a few years time. The issues surely  were transport, planning, the environment and taxation. What will the Mayor do about the shortage of road  capacity for cars, vans,  buses, lorries and cycles?  How will the tube be expanded? When will there be proper 24 hour running? When will all trains be air conditioned with larger carriages? How will London create more affordable homes to buy and to rent?  What will happen to the Council tax? Is there a working plan to improve air quality? These questions Mr Khan now has to answer. How can he afford his fares freeze and the large sums needed to expand capacity on the tube? How will he prevent the streets of London from snarling up under the pressures of reduced roadway, more roadworks and more incursions onto the carriageway from the myriad of building projects?

Mr Cameron the morning after the results suggested that they showed how campaigning in the centre ground as One nation Conservatives gave the party a good boost from third to second in Scotland. This was a curious observation. The crucial day  before the elections in the Commons Mr Cameron chose to highlight the London Mayoral race, not the Scottish Parliamentary elections. His message then did  not seem to be a One Nation emollient plea for the centre ground, and did  not mention what we might do to make London better under Mayor Goldsmith. I think that was a missed opportunity. Instead he concentrated on angry challenges to Mr Khan, who emerged in many electors eyes unscathed from the attacks.