Select Committee on Economic Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 30 - 34)

TUESDAY 9 OCTOBER 2007

Professor Robert Rowthorn

  Q20  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: But you are making only a token contribution to the world's ills whereas it might have a pretty serious impact on your own poorer section of society.

  Professor Rowthorn: I think it probably would.

  Q21  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: How would you stop that if the majority of people did not want to make that gesture?

  Professor Rowthorn: I do not know. I came along here firmly determined not to take any political position on anything. What I am pointing out is what the alternatives are. I of course have my private views on this.

  Q22  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Could I ask then specifically how much you think wages would have to rise in order to fill with British workers the low-paid jobs currently performed by migrants?

  Professor Rowthorn: It depends what kinds of jobs you are talking about. If you are talking about catering, for example, a modest amount. If you are talking about some of the jobs in more remote areas, for example, in agriculture, I think you would probably find it very hard to get people. You have to remember that quite a lot of the migrant labour is seasonal labour, Ukrainian students, for example, and one of the things about that is that the benefits to them are not simply economic; they come and they eventually learn English and they experience another culture. It must be said that the evidence seems to be that the local workers most hurt were not born here; they are the previous generation of immigrants. The previous generation of immigrants are the ones who seem to suffer most competition from the new migrants. The problem is not just that the migrants are selected but that many of the east Europeans come because they want to learn English so they want to practise English. They have strong motives for coming. It was exactly the same argument that there used to be in the Post Office when they got people from school to earn extra money at Christmas time and the unions were always concerned that they would be undercut. It seems to me the argument is an unimpeachable one, that to defend the locals you basically have to restrict entry by others. You might say, of course, that that is a very bad thing to do and many trade unions were criticised for that. They were criticised for putting the interests of their own "insiders" above the interests of outsiders, but it is a standard trade union principle. Why the TUC has taken its present position I do not know.

  Q23  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: You are really clear that you do not think the effects of immigration on GDP per capita are very great. One of the arguments that is sometimes put forward is that in this brave new world of unlimited labour (and the British economy has sometimes run up against bottlenecks in the past) it has raised the long term and sustainable growth of the economy, but I take it you think that is nonsense.

  Professor Rowthorn: I cannot see that it can raise the long term growth rate of GDP per capita, although if you had very capable immigrants it might raise the level of it—well, it certainly would raise the level of it. If you increase the population by 5% then sooner or later GDP will increase by 5%, but that may not affect GDP per capita. In terms of our own self-interest, do we have an interest in having a bigger gross domestic product? If five million people come in and everything extra they produce they get themselves, that is very good for them; it is of no great benefit to the locals. It does not mean you should not let them in but you should be clear that they are the beneficiaries.

  Q24  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: You mentioned mechanisation and investment in plant and machinery, and you have referred to tomatoes in California. Can you think of any other conspicuous examples of where investment might have replaced unskilled labour because on the face of it, when we look at the very rapid growth of the services sector in the south of England, much of it done with immigrants, I would have thought it would be quite difficult to imagine that much of that could be mechanised.

  Professor Rowthorn: I agree, but you have to ask yourself, if you did not have the supply what would employers do? They might find ways of bringing people from elsewhere in the country. Indeed, they might find ways of bringing them from elsewhere in London because unemployment is actually very high in London, and it might become a matter of urgency to the people concerned, most of whom, it must be said, are from ethnic minorities, so it is not a simple racial issue. They might find ways of helping locals to acquire skills and get into work. It is a challenge that you may need to meet and the cost of these people is significant, not just in human terms; it is also significant to the taxpayer.

  Q25  Chairman: I wonder if you would say a word about illegal immigrants. Is there any evidence that they have any economic effect that is not obviously the same as others have?

  Professor Rowthorn: I have to say that is really beyond my competence. I can express a general theoretical view that illegal immigrants tend to provide more competition for locals because they are in a weaker position compared to employees and they cannot create trouble because they will get deported. Of course, that is one of the arguments in the United States. Illegal workers, are not thrown out and there are no employer sanctions for using them because the employers do not want them, so they are a rather docile labour pool.

  Q26  Lord Sheldon: You believe that the fiscal impact of immigration is broadly neutral. What do you think of the fiscal effects over a longer time frame?

  Professor Rowthorn: Over a long time frame it depends upon the types of migrants. I will give you a good example. Take east European migrants that come into the country. Most of them who come are without family dependants and their net fiscal contribution is probably positive simply because they do not use the welfare state much and they pay value added tax. They are mostly low paid workers; about 80% are pretty close to the minimum wage. If they have families and they stay in that position, then, of course, they will be entitled to a whole range of welfare benefits. In fact, we have the strange situation where they can have children at home and after a year here they can get child benefit which they send home. Such factors would probably make their fiscal contribution go negative. The other thing is that the migrant population is generally relatively young and, of course, as they age they will make a whole range of claims on the welfare state and on the taxpayer. If you take a given a cohort of migrants, initially they may come in and they are beneficial from a tax point of view. In the course of time they become negative and then, of course, they die off, so that particular cohort has a positive effect at first and then a negative one afterwards. The overall effect depends on how skilled they are but I think unskilled migrants on low pay with families in general have a negative impact over their fiscal lifecycle. That is what I would imagine. Most models which examine the impact of immigration on the fiscal position assume a continued flow of migration. In other words, you get in some cases a small benefit from immigration but to maintain that benefit you have to have more immigration in future, and more and more, so it is not, as it were, a once-and-for-all gain; to preserve it you require a continual flow of immigration. In a number of countries people have done models in which they have tried to look forwards (they are mainly Scandinavians but not entirely), and they have found that the impact of unskilled migrants on the fiscal balance tends to be negative over their lifetime here and that of skilled migrants tends to be positive. The reason why the overall fiscal effects are small is that you have a mixture of migrants. If you had, say, 10,000 brilliant entrepreneurs who came into the country and they set up new businesses and raised productivity dramatically, et cetera, that would have a very big positive and permanent impact. But, if somebody says immigration does not have much effect on the fiscal balance, behind that statement is some idea that you have a mixture of immigrants. After all, immigrants who come to the country and never get a job, which is true of some, are a big burden. People who come into the country, earn a lot of money, add a lot to the GDP, pay a lot of taxes, send their children to private school, have private health, et cetera, probably make a very big fiscal contribution.

  Q27  Chairman: But what about those who send the substantial amounts they earn back to their host country? What effect does that have on our economy?

  Professor Rowthorn: It weakens the balance of payments, I suppose. I know people make a lot of this issue but I am not sure it is very important.

  Q28  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: But they account for 20% of some countries' GDP.

  Professor Rowthorn: I mean from our point of view. That is absolutely right. In some Pacific islands their main economic activity—

  Q29  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: European countries too.

  Professor Rowthorn: Yes, but the Pacific islands particularly, their main activity—

  Q30  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Albania, Moldova.

  Professor Rowthorn: Yes, but for the smaller islands their main activity is breeding children, which they export. Their major export is children, as it were, grown-up children. Seriously, they live on aid and remittances, and obviously for some east Europeans this is true. That is why I said you have to consider things other than our own self-interest.

  Q31  Lord Sheldon: There is surely a long-term matter here because when they come in they start contributing to the economy and it is only some considerable time later, when they bring their family in or things like that, that the advantages decline.

  Professor Rowthorn: It may not be that considerable. It is not that many years. The problem is that you cannot analyse the immigration problem in the short term. You have to have a long time perspective. That is what is wrong with people saying that 180,000 net immigration is not very much; it does not add much to the population per year, but, of course, if you accumulate it, it does. I think you have to take a long-term perspective on these things. My own long-term perspective would be to try and spell out what our own national interest is, if you like, the narrow interest, and then see how we can balance this against the interests of others.

  Q32  Lord Layard: Following that up, looking at it from a policy point of view, there are a lot of things where we have no freedom of manoeuvre. We have no freedom of manoeuvre over EU migrants. We indeed have now de facto no freedom of manoeuvre over people coming to work in the cities, so should not the debate and the analysis focus on the effects of those types of immigrants over which we have some freedom of manoeuvre, which I suppose is mainly immigrants from the Third World? I just wondered if you could say a bit about how focusing the debate that way might change things from the point of view of the overall presentation you have made so far, and indeed give us some idea of what fraction of the existing net immigration is from the Third World.

  Professor Rowthorn: There are a number of items which are going to be important here. I think it is important to take a long view. Immigration from the existing east European so-called A8 countries, the latest wave of entrants, is going to tail off. It might take ten or 15 years to tail off but my guess it that it will tail off, and probably, I would imagine, faster than people think, the net flows, that is. The real question is, what about the next wave of countries that join the European Union, if Turkey joins, for example, or it may get some associate status, some more advanced status than it has now? What would be our view towards migration from there? When we said we would have free migration from the A8 countries the prediction was that it would lead to virtually no immigration into the country; I think 13,000 was the maximum figure cited in a study. In actual fact it has turned out to be hundreds of thousands and that, of course, could happen with Turkey, it could happen with the Ukraine and so on. If we wanted to control that immigration, that would have a big effect on the net flows in the longer term. Another question, for example, is spousal migration. We have something like 50,000 spouses a year entering the country at the moment. There has been a huge increase in the last 15 years. The flows going in the other direction are much smaller although there are no definite figures. That is an item about which we could say that this is to some degree a form of disguised economic migration because it means that people from poorer countries in general when they marry tend to go to richer countries. I am just pointing out the things one could do. Personally, I am very reluctant to interfere in people's family decisions, but that is a possibility. David Blunkett thought that it was very harmful because it prevented the integration of certain communities and he appealed to people to find spouses at home. The other thing is that we could enforce more vigorously the laws on illegal working here. The question in that context is that it is not just to stop the people who are currently present illegally but the people who will enter in the future. These are all possibilities. I only mention these possibilities; I am not advocating them. I am simply saying that if I were a civil servant asked, as it were, to recommend how I could do it, and it was not my job to express moral judgments, those are some of the things I might list.

  Chairman: Has anybody got a question they have not asked that they feel they want to ask, or have you, Professor, got anything to say that you feel you need to say that you have not said?

  Q33  Lord Skidelsky: There is one question that was not asked and you may not want to answer it. What is your view of current evidence on the social costs and benefits of immigration?

  Professor Rowthorn: I have prepared nothing for that. I have not thought about it for some time. I think there are quite serious problems. Trevor Phillips has been talking about the quite significant problems of integration, one of which is the problem of segregation due to people living in different areas, for example, and I think that problem might get worse with more immigration, or, paradoxically, it might get better because it might mean that previous generations of immigrants move out of London and their existing places and settle in other parts of the country, I think there are potentially serious problems with immigration and social cohesion but I prefer not to discuss them now because I have to say my views are not terribly clear on them.

  Q34  Lord Layard: Could we ask about the housing market?

  Professor Rowthorn: Yes. There was a report done in 2000 by the Joseph Rowntree Commission which said that immigration was one of the main factors for housing demand in the south east of the country, where the growing demand for land for housing causes a lot of friction. At one time people used to say that the main cause of rising housing demand was smaller families, for example, ageing of the population, but if you take a long-term perspective the dominant element in it will be population growth due to migration and that will cause a continuing rise in the demand for housing. Some people do not mind the south east becoming more and more urbanised but other people do. One of the reasons that people give for going to New Zealand, for example, is that they like going to places which have a very low population density. That may not be their true reason but that is the reason they give.

  Chairman: Can I thank you very much. We have covered a lot of ground and you have been very helpful to us right at the beginning of our inquiry. You have also given us a lot of written evidence and we are extremely grateful to you for getting us off to a good start. Thank you very much indeed.






 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008