Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR KEITH
BEST, MR
NICK HARDWICK
AND SIR
ANDREW GREEN
TUESDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 2002
Mr Watson
20. Is there any disagreement about the likely
level of net legal immigration into the UK over the coming years?
I suspect there will be.
(Sir Andrew Green) Would you like me to set out my
stall and then let the others shoot at it? How would you like
to do it? It is quite a complex question but I can answer it quite
precisely.
Chairman
21. Yes, a succinct answer.
(Sir Andrew Green) Can I ask the Committee to reach
for this document that we have circulated? It is called Bulletin
No 7,[1]
and there are spare copies if necessary. Let me just say once
again that we accept genuine refugees—that is not the issue.
However, they are only 10% of the people who come here. Can I
call your attention, Chairman, to the second diagram on page 2.
This is the Home Office's own projection, and it is published
in RDS Occasional Paper No. 67. As you can see it is Figure 3.5.
What it shows you is the actual and predicted net migration of
non-EU nationals. It is important to explain, in case there is
any misunderstanding, that we focus on non-EU because EU nationals
have a treaty right to come and go, so that is a wholly different
argument, and also because we in Migrationwatch are concerned
about the total numbers. The numbers to and from the European
Union are more or less in balance, so that is why we picked on
this. This actually addresses where we think the problem of numbers
lies. It is also important to say that, as you see in the heading
there, we are talking about net migration. That is to say, the
number of people who come in minus those who go out in any particular
year. Coming to the diagram itself, you will see a dark black
line which fluctuates but is generally in an upward direction.
The blue line is the one that the Home Office researchers produced.
They fitted a curve of the trends of the last 15 years, using,
they say, a method based on previous migration and on UK unemployment.
You will see that that blue line is rising steadily and, according
to them, will hit 180,000 in the year 2005. It is not a terribly
good copy but that is what the top point on the graph is. You
will also see a dotted line. The dotted line we inserted afterwards
because those are the actual data that became available later.
You will see the actual flow is already significantly greater
than the forecast. So, to summarise, the Home Office's own projection
of non-EU net migration is of the order of 180,000 a year and,
indeed, the actuals are higher than that. If I can just mention
the Government actuaries' forecast, which is different—
22. Our difficulty is that I know this is a
complex subject but your answers are filling a page-and-a-half
of the transcript every time and it actually does not make very
good reading.
(Sir Andrew Green) I understand that.
23. We need to try and hone this down.
(Sir Andrew Green) There are very important points
to be understood, of course.
24. Your basic point is that you think that
the level of legal migration is quite high enough and we do not
need any more. Is it not?
(Sir Andrew Green) I certainly think that. There is
also the question of illegal immigration, which I will speak to
later.
Mr Watson
25. I would appreciate hearing if there is a
dissenting view about two million a decade.
(Mr Hardwick) I certainly have a dissenting view.
I do not think the figures do stand up. I do not want to go into
vast amounts of detail but we would not argue that there is net
legal migration of the sort of order the Home Office talks about
into the country. Frankly, whether it is a little bit more or
a little bit less is not the key issue. There is clearly net migration.
What I do find difficult is that I do think to some extent the
figures are being plucked out of the air. Sir Andrew referred,
in his argument, to the idea that if we needed to match and maintain
the demographic balance of the population as it is at the moment
we would need legal migration of one million people a year.
(Sir Andrew Green) No, no, Mr Hardwick has not understood
the point.
(Mr Hardwick) Sir Andrew referred, I think, to large
numbers of migrants that would be needed to maintain age ratios
in the population.
26. I do not want a witness row!
(Mr Hardwick) I think that he used a very large number.
No one here has argued that we need to keep that exact number
in place. The figure that he quoted was a kind of straw poll.
No one is arguing for that. He also referred, which he has done
in his briefings, to the 1.3 billion, which is the existing population
of the top ten asylum-producing countries. So what? Is it seriously
being suggested that all of those 1.3 billion people are going
to up sticks and leave? If it is not, why is that figure constantly
referred to in his briefings? He referred to the 10% of people
who are accepted for asylum. Of course, as any cursory examination
of the asylum statistics will show, there are figures for people
who are subsequently accepted on appeal and you have an acceptance
rate of about 50%, and his figures leave out the people who are
accepted on appeal. He said that the Home Office figures are suspect
because they include people like American bankers. Why are American
bankers okay but Sri Lankan bankers not okay? I think he is selective
in the information that he uses. I think these big figures that
keep being repeated are not neutral, they are done to further
a pressure group's point of view, which is fair enough, but I
do not think it is fair to pretend that somehow or other this
is a neutral, objective analysis.
Mr Cameron
27. Chairman, can I make a suggestion? The biggest
figure is this 180,000 a year. Can we ask whether the witnesses
agree or disagree with that? That is the most important figure
in all this.
(Mr Hardwick) I would accept the Home Office figures.
(Mr Best) If I may, very briefly, Chairman? Yes, those
figures are generally correct, but we believe the whole thing
needs to be put in context. First of all, 85% of the 89 million
passenger arrivals from outside the common travel area in the
year 2000 were from the EU or the EEA, and I think it is important
to recognise that the great majority—something like, as
I say, 85% or so—of those who come into the United Kingdom
are coming from the EEA. Of course, we know that there are a number
of countries in Eastern Europe knocking on the door of the European
Union as well, whose citizens are presently subject to immigration
control. That may continue in a transitional period to a certain
extent but, at some stage, that immigration control will cease
down the line once those countries actually join the European
Union. I think the whole debate becomes somewhat sterile not least
because of the paucity of statistics on which we can rely effectively,
but also looking at people's habits and what they are likely to
do. Sir Andrew was making much play of the fact that immigrants
coming into this country are going to claim state pensions, without
mentioning at all the fact that many people actually choose to
go back to their country of origin for the purposes of retirement,
or whatever. Not everybody who comes to our country, even though
they may be adjudged by the figures to be coming for permanent
settlement because they have entered for more than a 12-month
period, remain in the country. I think that is something that
needs to be taken into account very much when looking at the whole
process of what you describe, Chairman, as the kind of new globalisation
of migration, where people not only seek to come to a particular
country but they leave the country as well. So there is complete
movement all the way through.
Mr Watson
28. You have given us a broad picture of what
you think the numbers of legal immigrants are. You mention the
effect. What do you think the Government should be doing about
this level of legal immigration?
(Mr Best) I do not think, personally, that this is
a level of immigration which is unsustainable. I think it is not
one to cause great alarm, bearing in mind the factors that I have
mentioned and other matters that come into play. Also, to a certain
extent, market forces do play a part. People are hardly likely
to want to come to a country where there are no employment prospects.
So if there comes a time when employment needs in this country
are being met fully by the so-called indigenous population (and
I am not sure how you actually define that these days because
I suspect even Sir Andrew would agree his family was an immigrant
family at some stage down—
(Sir Andrew Green) It certainly was not, if I may
say so, Mr Best.
(Mr Best) Whether we came with the Normans or whatever,
we have all come to this country at some stage; it is just a question
of when. Looking at those aspects, because of the migration flows,
that is not a problem. I think that what exercises the general
public and is increasingly exercising the Government is the matters
that we will come on to discuss, and that is the question of what
do you do with the people who remain unlawfully or who come into
the country illegally. That is a major problem in a civil libertarian
society—as to how you actually deal with that, but we will
come on to that in a few moments.
29. You mentioned that your organisation has
said you think the system is inefficient and that too much attention
is being paid to asylum seekers. Can you elaborate on that?
(Mr Best) First of all, I do not think anybody would
have a great deal of confidence in the concept of strategic planning
in a sphere where we are now seeing the fourth major piece of
legislation going through Parliament in the space of less than
ten years. I am afraid that there are many who consider that that
legislation, if it goes on to the statute book in its present
form, has certain flaws in it which means Parliament will have
to revisit this area again, probably in a very short space of
years. I rather hope that we might be able to break the triennial
cycle that seems to have been established since 1993. So I think
that is the first problem, that there is a lack of strategic planning.
I think, also, really commensurate with that, is that there is
now a need for stability. The 1971 Act may have had some difficulties
but it did serve the country reasonably well for 30-odd years
and people became used to it and they understood it. In this area
where one is dealing with people who are, very often, inarticulate
in the English language and who do not understand the ways of
British bureaucracy, it is particularly important that the law
is clear. What we are now dealing with is probably one of the
most volatile and one of the most complicated areas of law in
the United Kingdom, and it is becoming more and more complicated
as governments do knee-jerk reactions to things, very often based
upon sometimes a total absence of verifiable research. It is only
now that we are beginning to see qualitative research done, for
example into matters that were raised earlier on about what motivates
people to come to the United Kingdom. What that qualitative research
shows—perhaps ten years too late—is that certainly
one of the reasons for coming to the United Kingdom was not benefits,
and yet the whole policy of vouchers was predicated on the basis
of benefits being a pull factor. We saw major pieces of legislation—
Chairman
30. We are moving on to asylum now. We were
trying to talk about legal migration and whether we thought the
existing levels were too low or could be increased. That is the
point we are addressing at the moment, I think.
(Sir Andrew Green) Can I come back to your point,
Chairman. I think we have had a very important admission here
that there is no dispute that the measured migration is of the
order of 180,000 a year. That is approaching the 2 million. I
think the other point to make to Mr Watson, if I may, is that
in addition to these measured migrations—as you know, it
is done by survey, so it is people who say they are coming or
going for over 12 months—there are at least two important
forms of illegal migrant. We have made very cautious estimates
of those in our papers, and I will not repeat those unless you
want me to, but that brings in another 60,000. So you are getting
on for about a quarter of a million a year, which is the population
of the city of Cambridge every six months. If my colleagues here
think that that is an acceptable situation—
31. Would you take us through those figures,
step-by-step? Very briefly, but step-by-step.
(Sir Andrew Green) With pleasure, yes, I think they
are important. Can I ask you, please, to look again at this paper.
We have dealt with the 180,000. If you would like to turn the
page, you will see paragraph 4. I am not here talking about failed
asylum seekers; they are already in the 180,000. So there is no
double-counting here. I am talking about 4(b) and 4(c). Four (b)
refers to visitors and students of whom, as Mr Best mentioned,
very large numbers come into the country. We have taken only those
from the third world and Eastern Europe, which are the sources
of over-stayers, largely. That number is about 3.5 million every
year. What we are saying is—this is not an exact science—that
at a rough guess maybe 1% over-stay. Ninety-nine per cent go home
when they should; only 1% stay. Anybody who knows anything about
this field will regard that as a very cautious estimate. That
is your 35,000.
32. Stop there. Mr Hardwick, do you agree with
that?
(Mr Hardwick) I do not have a view on the numbers
of visitors who over-stay.
33. Do you have a view, Mr Best?
(Mr Best) We just do not know.
(Sir Andrew Green) I am not saying anyone knows, I
am saying 1% is a very conservative estimate. The other element
is those who are undetected when they are smuggled into Britain.
According to the White Paper, in the year 2000, 47,000 people
were detected—in shorthand—in the back of trucks.
The regime of inspection is roughly one in a hundred (I took that
from one of Mr Malins' contributions to the House of Commons).
So however you look at it the inspection is of a very small number
of trucks. What we are saying is that in the other 99 trucks if
there are only half as many people as you find in the one truck,
that is an incredibly low and cautious estimate. (It is not incredible,
it is our figure).
34. Mr Hardwick, do you accept that?
(Mr Hardwick) No, I certainly do not accept that figure,
Chairman, and I think there are two reasons. First of all, of
course, this is an example of the double-counting that has gone
on, because many of those who are detected legally will subsequently
go on and claim asylum, and he has added those two together and
very often they are the same individual. Secondly, I think this
illustrates the problem that Migrationwatch have plucked this
figure—we will take his estimate—of half as many of
them again will remain undetected. Why half? Why not 25%? Why
not 75%? It is a made up figure. It is an entire guess and he
could have picked any figure on the range from 0 to 100% and it
would have equally as much legitimacy—it is simply made
up. Secondly, the point about the random sample. Again, it is
not a random sample, it is specific carriers and trucks who will
be targeted. It is not that they just pick one in a hundred, they
will have intelligence that enables them to pick. That figure
on illegal migration is, I think, the most spurious.
35. Can I just remind you of where we were?
I am conscious that we are entering into a huge bowl of treacle
here. The proposition we are seeking to test at the moment, and
we will come to asylum in a moment, is whether there is a case
for increasing the number of work permits for legal migrants into
the country. Am I right in thinking that Mr Hardwick and Mr Best
think there is and Sir Andrew thinks there is not?
(Mr Hardwick) Yes, but can I slightly quantify that.
First of all it seems to me that while I accept there are 180,000
coming in at the moment, I do not necessarily accept that that
is a trend which is going to continue. I think my view would be
the numbers should be based on the kind of economic sector analysis,
which should take a view about what our needs are and base the
figures on that, rather than setting some sort of absolute number
which could be correct or not.
36. I think we have identified what this issue
is. It is a very small point, actually, legal migration.
(Sir Andrew Green) Chairman, can I just be clear?
There is no double-counting here. Certainly we are taking a guess
at the number of people in trucks who are not found but, of course,
if they are not found they do not claim asylum. So there is no
double-counting. What we have come to is 180,000 that we all agree
on, 35,000 which we say is a cautious estimate, 25,000 which Mr
Hardwick thinks is taken off the wall—and, to some extent
it is—but you are left with approaching a quarter-of-a-million
a year. If anyone in this Committee thinks that that situation
continuing indefinitely in this country is sensible and acceptable,
I would be very surprised. There is a very great concern—and
I get this in my mailbag and I am sure you do—about the
whole scale of this. Frankly, I think it would be very irresponsible
to suggest, on the basis of economic arguments which are extremely
flawed, in my view, but, even if they are not, there are social
aspects here, that to have getting on for 250,000 every year coming
into this country, I think, is very, very foolish. I very much
hope that Parliament will look at this very carefully and very
closely.
Chairman: Thank you. I think we have
clearly highlighted the differences between the two camps.
Mrs Dean
37. Just a very quick question of Sir Andrew.
Which legal migrants would you not allow to enter?
(Sir Andrew Green) That is a contradiction in terms.
If someone is a legal migrant—
Mrs Dean: No, legal migrant.
Chairman: We are concentrating on legal,
at the moment.
Mrs Dean
38. You said there were 180,000 legal migrants.
I am asking which of those would you not allow to enter?
(Sir Andrew Green) I did not say they were legal migrants,
I said this is what the survey shows for the total numbers. We
do not know—okay, for shorthand call them legal. I think
that we are going to have to look again at the whole structure
of our immigration regime if we cannot find some way to get at
least the illegal immigrants under control. That is a big question
and I do not want to be drawn into policy issues. As I said at
the beginning, we will make proposals for that in due course.
Chairman
39. One point you make in your evidence is that
you would reduce the number of work permits available for legal
migrants. Is that right?
(Sir Andrew Green) Yes, for the reasons we have just
touched on—
1 Available on the World Wide Web on 14 January 2003:
www.migrationwatchuk.org/BulletinNo.7htm Back
|
