Examination of Witness (Questions 20-36)
SIR ANDREW
GREEN
8 JULY 2008
Q20 Chairman: Is there another country
that does this that could be a model for what you propose?
Sir Andrew Green: Worldwide, yes.
Europe, no; United States, no, but, as I mentioned in reply to
Mr Winnick, our situation is somewhat different and different
also from the major immigration countries like the United States,
Canada, Australia, which are practically continents. We are a
small island and next year we will be the most crowded country
in Europe apart from Malta. We have a different balance that we
need to strike between these two considerations, and one way to
approach it would be to say: the needs are temporary, let us have
immigration that is temporary. Why allow those whom we need temporarily
to settle permanently? It is a different approach, but I commend
it to you for consideration.
Q21 David Davies: What about the
possibility of offering an amnesty to the many illegal workers
who we have been told by the curry industry are already working
in British curry houses?
Sir Andrew Green: We would be
very opposed to that.
Q22 Chairman: Do we have numbers
on this? Do you have estimates as to how many?
Sir Andrew Green: The Government's
estimate, or the one they quote, is of the order of half a million,
unofficial estimates are nearer to a million but, of course, nobody
knows. We think it is a very serious problem in itself because,
of course, it can very often lead to exploitation of workers,
it undercuts the pay of British workers and it enables unscrupulous
employers to complete unfairly against honest ones. We have four
major reasons, and I will just mention them briefly because I
know it is a topical subject. First of all, it is wrong in principle
to reward illegal behaviour with what amounts to a meal ticket
for life. Secondly and, perhaps, more importantly, it cannot possibly
work. If you take your half a million or million people and say
you, "Right, you are legal." We give out two million
visas a year, many of them to people from countries where wages
are a fifth or a 25th of ours. Of course they will want to stay
on and save some money and send home, as it happens now; so they
will simply be replaced by others. Thirdly, it will be extremely
expensive. The IPPR assessment of this was extraordinary. They
calculated the benefit to the Treasury without mentioning the
cost. If you make a proper assessment, it will cost at least a
billion a year and, worse still, it will add say, half a million,
if you like. It will add half a million to the housing lists;
it will give those people the right to bring their families over
here; they will move up the priority list for housing; it will
make a shambles of our housing. Finally, the administrative difficulties
are enormous. If you say we will give it to people who have been
here 10 years, for example, how do you know they have been here
for 10 years? They have no documents by definition.
Q23 Gwyn Prosser: You have described
the points-based system as being complex, bureaucratic and highly
likely to lead to chaos and confusion, increasing the scope for
abuse. Can you tell us what evidence you have for this assertion?
Sir Andrew Green: Evidence?
Q24 Gwyn Prosser: Yes.
Sir Andrew Green: It has not started
yet, so we do not have any evidence, but we can certainly point
to what we would regard as the potential weaknesses, if I may
put it like that.
Q25 Gwyn Prosser: So you have no
evidence. You are simply looking ahead and thinking it is going
to be difficult?
Sir Andrew Green: Yes, because
it has not started yet. I think the main scope for abuse will
be under tier one. We need to remember that this system is almost
entirely a paper system, or an electronic system. Furthermore,
the applications in most countries have been outsourced. You do
not any longer go to the visa section of the British Embassy,
you go to a company. I think it is an Indian company and an American
company doing it.
Q26 Chairman: Kuoni.
Sir Andrew Green: Is it? Yes.
People making this application will not see hide nor hair of an
immigration officer. So that adds, in our view, to the risk of
forged qualifications. There are some countries, as you may know,
where multinational companies simply do not operate on the basis
of paper because it is unreliable. Our system is entirely based
on paper. Secondly, under tier one there is no requirement for
the person concerned actually to work in a skilled occupation
when they come here. So that is quite a big loophole. After three
years they have to apply for further leave to remain, and then
they have to show their pay slips, but for three years they can
do what they like and if they have not got the pay slips they
can disappear. Thirdly, and I do not think this has been mentioned
before but I think it ought to be mentioned, there are no medical
tests. Every other major country of immigration has medical tests.
So if you do have qualifications and you also have a medical problem,
there must be some possibility that you would choose Britain rather
than elsewhere. As regards tier two, the main risk is what is
called the resident labour market test. What that means is: can
you find a local employee? Now that we have free movement in the
European Union, the question is: can you find somebody within
the European Union? That is notoriously hard to police, because
if you are an employer, you put out your advertisement and there
is no way of knowing whether you took the replies seriously.
Gwyn Prosser: Referring back to some
earlier exchanges, you have described yourself as a self-appointed
chairman of a private company by guarantee. When you preface your
answers with, "We think this" and, "We think that"
should you not be saying, "Andrew Green thinks this",
or, "Andrew Green thinks that"?
Q27 David Davies: Chairman, can I
make a point of order on this. I have sat through a lot of these
committees and I have listened to all sorts of rather nebulous
organisations, frankly, whose reason for existence I would question,
but I have never done so on this committee because I have always
thought it right and proper that those who give evidence be treated
with courtesy. Sir Andrew Green has been quizzed several times
now in a way that I think would have been unacceptable if I had
done it on various legal opposite points of view. But if this
line of questioning is to be continued, Sir, I will absolutely
be using, word for word, these sorts of questions to many of the
other organisations that come before us.
Sir Andrew Green: Chairman, if
I may.
Q28 Chairman: If you wish to answer
that you may, but you do not have to.
Sir Andrew Green: I am grateful
for Mr Davies' support. I think they are well spoken words, but
if I may—
Q29 Chairman: Sir Andrew, can I stop
you one second. You are not the issue here. We are here to do
an inquiry into the points-based system, so I think we should
move on.
Sir Andrew Green: Chairman, with
respect, the credibility of my organisation has been called into
question.
Q30 Chairman: You wish to answer
that.
Sir Andrew Green: I would like
to answer that.
Q31 Chairman: Could you do so briefly?
Sir Andrew Green: I will do so
in about six sentences, and I will take six examples.
Q32 Chairman: Could you reduce the
number of examples, because we are pressed for time. Perhaps in
a sentence could you say what you have to say and we will move
on to the subject of the inquiry.
Sir Andrew Green: I think the
committee should be aware that we have a very strong record of
accurate prediction and analysis on the whole field of immigration.
Six years ago we said that there would be two million immigrants
every 10 years. That is now the official estimate. When the Government
said 13,000 for Eastern Europe, we said it was not credible.
Chairman: We understand that. Sir Andrew,
you are here as a witness. We have asked you to come to talk about
the points-based system, not about yourself. Martin Salter has
the final question.
Martin Salter: Sir Andrew, I have never
had the pleasure of meeting you before. Can I ask one question?
You said that you did not think it was appropriate for donors
or supporters of your organisation to be made public, and I respect
that, but as a company limited by guarantee are they not recorded
in your company accounts?
Q33 Chairman: Mr Salter, I do not
think that is appropriate for the inquiry. You do not have to
answer that.
Sir Andrew Green: There is no
secret about it. Everyone knows that we are a private company
limited by guarantee. We have Directors and they are recorded
at Companies House, but, Chairman, if I may, this is the fourth
question that has sought to undermine the reputation of my organisation,
I think that is unacceptable. I am grateful to you for your invitation,
but I do not think it is right that members of this committee
should seek to use the occasion to attack my organisation.
Bob Russell: We are not attacking, we
are just asking about it.
Chairman: Sir Andrew, I am the Chairman.
Can I call for order on this. We are here, if I may remind members
of the committee, to talk about the points-based system, not to
talk about Migration Watch. Are there any more questions on the
points-based system?
Q34 Martin Salter: I am sorry, Sir
Andrew, I was merely seeking to clarify an earlier answer you
gave. You talked in terms of migration not being an answer to
labour skill shortages and, given time, wages should rise and
British workers can be trained to fill those vacancies. Is there
not a counter-argument that says that if companies are experiencing
recruitment difficulties, particularly in the context of a global
economy, there is a very real possibility that they will move
their entire operation abroad and therefore UK PLC loses out;
in other words everybody loses?
Sir Andrew Green: Yes. What I
was giving you was the House of Lords' view on the economics of
this, which nobody contests, and that particular House of Lords
committee is of extremely high calibre. This is why we need a
balance. If we were to close the door and make immigration impossibly
difficult, then you are absolutely right, a lot of firms in the
City would say, "We cannot operate like this. We need Japanese
speakers, we need this, we need that." That is why we do
not suggest that. That is why we recognise, as I said at the start,
that we do need migration in both directions, and that is why
we also recommend for your consideration that work permits should
be available quite freely on a four-year basis but on the clear
understanding that people return after four years. That should
meet most employers' needs and would also supply the time for
British workers to be trained and incentives for employers to
replace someone who has come from abroad with a trained British
worker. We think it makes a lot of sense.
Q35 Martin Salter: I appreciate that
answer. One final question, Chairman. What research have you done
which indicates that employers seeking to fill the skill shortage
and employees seeking up to uproot themselves to come and work
in Britain to fill those short-term skill shortages are prepared
to come and work on short-term contracts? Have you done any research
to justify that?
Sir Andrew Green: It happens all
over the world. I have done it myself. I have been all over the
place for three or four years at a time, and that is what is done
widely throughout the world economy.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr Salter. Andrew,
thank you very much. I apologise if you have felt in any way that
you were being questioned about your organisation. You were invited
as a witness to this committee to give us evidence on this important
subject. You have an important contribution to make because of
what Migration Watch has said. If there is anything further that
you think would be of use to this committee—I am particularly
keen on this country that you have referred to that has this system—please
would you let us have this information?
Q36 Mr Streeter: I would like to
say, Sir Andrew, that your work is appreciated by many of us in
the House of Commons and I hope you continue with it. Thank you.
Sir Andrew Green: Thank you. May
I send your committee a memorandum on the points that I would
have made about Migration Watch in view of the questions I was
asked?
Chairman: That would you most helpful.
Thank you very much and thank you very much for coming.
| 
