Session 2012-13
Migration statistics
Written evidence submitted by Migration Observatory at University of Oxford
(5STATS 06)
Summary:
· It is often difficult for the "causal" user (e.g. NGO, journalist, council employee, academic, etc.) to find the information on the websites of the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office.
· Local area migration statistics are not currently at the level required to satisfy user needs. However, the ONS seems to be moving in the correct direction.
· Consultations with data users tend to emphasise "frequent" user needs and "causal" users are still having problems accessing and understanding migration statistics. These "causal" users put together represent a significant group, but more difficult to reach and with a less coherent sense of what they need.
· There is at least one key area where the public wants more information that is not currently available: the immigration status of migrants in the UK.
· The available migration estimates are problematic as a means to define and precisely measure progress toward a numerical limit on migration.
· The e-Borders system might lead to significant improvements. It will not provide the level of detailed information about migrants that the IPS provides, but it may be very useful to help refine the basic task of counting entries and exits.
1. Do the published migration statistics – at national, regional, and local levels – meet the full range of their users’ needs, namely:
a. Are they easily discoverable and accessible to all users?
1.1 At the Migration Observatory we get calls and emails regularly from migration statistics users who are looking for specific migration statistics on the websites of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) or the Home Office (HO) and are unable to find what they are looking for. Often these data are simply not available, but on many occasions the data are available on the ONS or HO websites, but it is difficult for the "causal" user (e.g. NGO, journalist, council employee, academic, etc.) to find the information. In particular, it is easy to reach the migration statistics page. However, once there the user is presented with hundreds of Excel files with limited explanation of which data they contain and it is challenging for non-experts to make sense of all the information available and find a specific series.
b. Are they easy to use and understand?
1.2 The statistics are very use to use and are accessible as Excel files. However, there is still a lot of confusion among users of these statistics. It is common for users to mix migrant flows with migrant stocks, or to confuse visa data with immigration flows data.
c. Do they provide the appropriate level of detail?
1.3 Many of the inquiries that we get are from people looking for local area statistics. The size and composition of the local population can change rapidly due to changes in both internal and international migration in- and out-flows. The Census is the best source of demographic data for small geographical units but it happens only every ten years and thus becomes quickly out of date, especially during times of large migration flows. In the intercensal period, estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the Annual Population Survey (APS) provide the best measurement of the migrant population at the local level (e.g. the number of foreign born and foreign nationals). However, the LFS and APS are national surveys that are not designed to yield precise estimates of the size and characteristics of the migrant population at the local level.
1.4 Other sources of information for the local level are incomplete as well. These include National Insurance Number registrations, registrations with a GP of individuals previously living overseas (Flag 4 records), registrations in the Workers’ Registration Scheme (WRS), and the International Passenger Survey (IPS). Importantly, while giving some information about the new inflow of migrants into particular areas of the UK, these data are not designed to measure the stock of migrants at a particular point in time as they do not capture migrants who leave the area for another place in the UK or to move abroad. The significant uncertainty about the number of migrants in local areas creates significant difficulties for the planning and efficient delivery of public services and a whole range of other public policies.
1.5 The ONS has improved the local area statistics on migration during the last several years and the 2011 Census should also help in this effort. While the local area migration statistics are not currently at the level required to satisfy user needs, the ONS seems to be moving in that direction.
d. Are they effectively summarised?
1.6 Migration statistics are generally well summarised in the HO and ONS reports accompanying the statistics release.
2. How well have producers of migration statistics engaged with users? How responsive have they been to feedback from users of the statistics?
2.1 Both HO and ONS hold regular consultations with frequent migration statistics users to improve access and usefulness of data. One problem is that these consultations tend to emphasise "frequent" user needs and "causal" users are still having problems accessing and understanding migration statistics. These "causal" users put together represent a significant group, but more difficult to reach and with a less coherent sense of what they need.
3. Do the migration statistics which are published enable members of the public to gain a better understanding of the issues?
Are the right migration statistics being collected?
3.1 In general, the migration statistics are very useful for researchers and for public understandings. However, there is at least one key area where the public wants more information that is not currently available: the immigration status of migrants in the UK.
3.2 There is no data source with information about the immigration status of migrants in the UK. The most comprehensive source of data on the number and characteristics of migrants is the LFS. The LFS includes questions about citizenship, place of birth and time spent in the UK. It does not, however, contain information about whether a migrant has temporary or permanent residence status ("leave to remain") in the UK. A new question in the LFS records the main reason for coming to the UK (e.g. working, studying, family, asylum, etc.), but there is no information on the actual status of the migrant and how his/her status has changed over time.
3.3 The absence of comprehensive information about migrants’ immigration status gives rise to at least three problems in public and policy debates. First and most fundamentally, we do not know the numbers and characteristics of migrants with different types of immigration status. Among the total stock of migrants in the UK, how many are currently on Tier 1 and 2 visas? How many have student visas and what share of migrants on student visas have taken up employment in the UK? How, if at all, do the personal characteristics, skills and labour market participation rates vary across migrants with different types of immigration status? We currently do not have the data to provide robust answers to these questions.
3.4 A consequent second problem is that we do not know how different types of immigration status affect the economic and social outcomes of migrants in the UK. Each immigration status is associated with different rights and restrictions with regard to access to employment and the welfare state. For example, current Tier 1 migrants have the right to free choice of employment in the UK, while Tier 2 migrants are only allowed to work for the employer specified on the certificate of sponsorship (they can change employers but only after a new application). How does this employment restriction impact on Tier 2 migrants’ wages and behaviour in the labour market? Some migrants do not have full access to selected welfare benefits such as health care and education. How do these restrictions impact on migrants’ health and other outcomes? How do the wages and jobs of recognised refugees change over time? The lack of data prevents systematic analysis of these issues.
3.5 The third problem is that we currently cannot systematically assess the impact of migrants with different types of immigration status on the UK labour market, economy and society. This issue becomes particularly problematic when Government is adjusting its immigration policies by fine tuning the admission and selection criteria for particular types of migrants (e.g. workers and students from outside the EU). In the absence of data about migrants’ immigration status, any impact analysis of changing policies that target specific migrant groups must necessarily remain limited.
4. Is the degree of uncertainty surrounding the estimates properly reported and widely understood?
Is the degree of uncertainty surrounding the estimates of migration acceptable or should it be reduced? If so, how could it be reduced?
4.1 The degree of uncertainty may not be widely understood and appreciated, although the recent move by ONS to publish confidence intervals around net migration estimates is a welcome development. It could also be further highlighted that all surveys – not only surveys of migrants – involve a degree of uncertainty about their central estimates.
5. Are the migration statistics adequate for measuring the Government’s progress against its net migration target?
5.1 The available migration estimates are problematic as a means to define and precisely measure progress toward a numerical limit on migration. The government has a policy goal of reducing net migration to the "tens of thousands" (i.e. less than 100,000) by 2015. For the government to be judged on its achievement in delivering this target, accurate measurement is important. But to know whether this target has been reached requires clear data – of the sort that the IPS does not currently produce because of the uncertainty surrounding the estimates.
5.2 As a consequence, the government could miss the "tens of thousands" target by many tens of thousands and still appear to have hit it – conversely the government could hit, or even exceed its target and still appear to have missed it by tens of thousands.
6. What more could be done to improve the quality of migration statistics?
Should data from other sources, such as e-Borders, be incorporated?
6.1 The e-Borders system might lead to significant improvements. It will not provide the level of detailed information about migrants that the IPS provides, but it may be very useful to help refine the basic task of counting entries and exits.
6.2 Some countries – such as Germany and the Netherlands – base their estimates of migration stock and flows on a population register rather than a survey or data on border exits or entries. Anyone taking up residence in Germany, for example, has to register with local authorities in order to get the necessary ID to allow them to work, claim benefits or do other day-to-day tasks. Registration systems can have their own problems because, for example, it is often much harder to register people leaving than arriving. There have been calls by some demographers to introduce a registration scheme in the UK, but cost, and a politically challenging public backlash against the introduction of ID cards in recent years, may well make it unlikely.
Related material
· For further information about problems with the UK’s collection of data on migration, read our "Top Ten Problems in the Evidence Base for Public Debate and Policy-Making on Immigration in the UK" report from 2011 at
January 2013