Examination of Witnesses (Questions 540
- 553)
TUESDAY 15 JANUARY 2008
Sir Andrew Green
Q540 Lord Skidelsky:
In other words, you are advocating for all the people covered
by the points system, are you, the status of guest worker?
Sir Andrew Green: Effectively from Tier 1 and
Tier 2, yes. The effect of that would be that we would gain the
skills, we would have an incentive for employers to train and
we would reduce sharply net immigration.
Q541 Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay:
You are against large-scale immigration. Is that mainly because
of concerns about specific costs associated with immigrants or
more general concerns about rapid population growth? We have heard
the Government say that they do not have a view on the desired
rate of population growth or a desirable level of population in
the UK. What are your views on that?
Sir Andrew Green: I think that is an absolutely
key question. I think, with respect, there is a lot of complacency
in this building about the impact of immigration on our society.
Any polling that you look at will give you some remarkable results.
It is not enough for the Minister to say that 30% do not care;
that is not quite right. 30% are not directly affected by immigration,
if you ask that question, but then if you ask how many feel there
should be a substantial reduction in immigration, you are then
in the 80s. To answer your question more precisely, we have two
major concerns. Let me make it clear, we are not opposed to immigration
as such; we are opposed to massive levels of immigration, which
is quite different. We accept that there is a case for limited
migration as a natural part of an open economy, and we welcome
that, but when it gets to these enormous numbers, we see real
problems of two kinds. One is the quality of life and the other
is the stability of our society, and I use that term not lightly.
As far as quality of life is concerned, we are now just about
the most crowded country in Europe, except for Malta. The Government's
principal projection for population gives nearly an extra ten
million in England alone—England I am talking about, not
the UK—over the next 25 years. That is equivalent to building
the entire city of Birmingham every two and a half years. The
last time I went through Birmingham on a train it is a hell of
a big city. Where on earth are you going to put it and the schools
and the roads and the factories and so on that are associated
with it? It is huge—every two and a half years. And 70%
of that population increase is down to immigration—immigrants
and their descendents. It is not 50%; it is 70%. We have had that
disagreement with the ONS. We took them to the Statistics Commission
and they confirmed 70%. That is a very important point. So by
2081 those same principal projections (this is not the high migration,
it is the principal projection) give nearly 75 million in England
alone. I keep saying England because that is where immigrants
go to. That is a 50% increase in our population within the lifetime
certainly of our grandchildren. The impact is absolutely huge.
For housing it can be calculated roughly. We will need to build
260 houses every day of the week for the next 20 years just for
new immigrants. I am not talking about existing immigrants, I
am talking about new immigrants. In other words, in the time it
takes me to answer this question you have got to build a house
and then keep doing it for 20 years. It is astronomical. We now
have new population projections which raise it even higher. It
was one new household in three; it is now about 39%. The Government
have not done all the arithmetic yet but that is our straight
line projection. Immigration is by far the largest factor. Extra
adults are 25%, extra single households—19%, over 65s—17%.
So at 39% immigration is by far the largest factor on housing
demand. The public does not understand that because the Government
avoid the issue, the BBC avoid the issue, but it has to be faced.
Even Professor Nickel who you had sitting here, said that cutting
immigration will not solve the housing problem and he got away
with it. Of course it will not, but if you knock down demand by
40% it is sure going to help.
Q542 Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay:
Could I just come back quickly on that.
Sir Andrew Green: I would like to add a second
half.
Q543 Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay:
You are using some pretty emotive language there, emotive numbers,
stability of our society—
Sir Andrew Green: With respect, these are not
emotive numbers. They are the Government's numbers—
Q544 Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay:
Emotive language, I said.
Sir Andrew Green: Let us just be clear; they
are the central estimate of the Government.
Q545 Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay:
But you are using some emotive language about the enormous numbers
and the stability of our society, that is what I am saying. You
have had quite a good innings being political, if I may say so,
which is not quite how we operate normally here, but can I just
pin you down particularly on your figure of about 70% net population
growth, I think you said, of immigrants and their descendents.
How do you define descendents, because I am bound to say I have
been looking round this table, and I was struck earlier when Lord
Paul was asking his question about the effect of no net migration,
if we look round this Committee, if there were no net migration
into England, we would be a pretty thin turn-out.
Sir Andrew Green: It is immigrants and their
children but I will send the Committee a note on that; it is quite
technical. The second half of what I was going to say concerns
stability of society, which you seem to think is political but
I think is directly related to the questions that this Committee
is considering. There are three points that I would make. One
is that we face an entirely new situation. The Government claim
that we are a nation of immigrants. That is quite simply untrue.
There have only been two significant waves of immigration since
1066. We had the Huguenots in the 16th Century; we have had the
Jewish immigration in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Both of those
amounted to 1% of the population at the time. Both of them were
spread over 50 years. We now have 1% of the population arriving
every two years. The present rate of immigration is therefore
25 times higher than at any time in our history. We have to be
clear about that. To take a more recent example, the East African
Asians—who by the way have done extremely well, as we all
know—were 27,000 spread over two years. We are now taking
very nearly that number every month in terms of net foreign immigration.
You can call that political, but it is a fact and it is the Government's
own numbers, and it would be quite wrong, I think, not to be aware
of it when you are talking about the impacts, economic and otherwise,
of immigration. Secondly, I would call your attention to Trevor
Phillips, who does not himself make any link with immigration
but he does describe the situation that immigrants are coming
to. He has spoken of "sleepwalking into segregation".
The final report of his CRE last autumn spoke of our society "fracturing"—his
words not mine—and I think yesterday morning he said that
white flight is accelerating, et cetera. This is outside my field.
I simply call your attention to what an expert in the field is
saying in public, and I think with a good deal of courage.
Chairman: Our concern as you know is
the economic impact.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: And evidence-based.
That is what we are trying to do today. We all read the newspapers
but that is not what you are here for, Sir Andrew.
Chairman: Could I bring in Lord Best
because we do have to move on.
Q546 Lord Best:
You spoke about the idea of putting an annual limit or quota on
migration to the UK. How, and by whom, should the quota be set?
Should quotas apply to certain types of migrants, ie economic
migrants only, or to all immigration from outside the EU?
Sir Andrew Green: Well, that indeed is the central
question and it is one that you have touched on with the Minister
just now. We are in the process of looking at a number of options.
One which the Committee might like to reflect on is the concept
of balanced migration. That is to say that you work towards a
situation in which the number of immigrants is similar to the
number of emigrants. Perhaps I might elaborate on what I mean
by that. To do that, you would have to examine the various components
of immigration and consider what might be possible. There are
five categories. The first is asylum, and we would not seek to
limit asylum for obvious reasons. Genuine refugees should be welcomed
and those who are not should be swiftly removed. There is no question
of a cap on genuine refugees. However, the numbers are really
quite small now. Those granted permission to stay of all kinds
in 2006, including their dependents, numbered 10,000. Net foreign
immigration is 300,000, so you are talking about 3% really, but
in any case, as a matter of principle, they should not be included.
Secondly, marriage—and there was a question earlier, I think,
about marriage—again, British citizens should of course
be free to marry who they choose provided that it is a genuine
marriage. We think there is a scope for tightening the regulations
on that, but that is outside this particular session I think.
Thirdly, students—there is a very strong case for admitting
students, again provided they are genuine. They are good for our
universities, good for our balance of payments and good for our
international links. They are technically immigrants because they
come for more than a year, but in practice they leave after three
years, the next lot come in, and they cancel each other out. Therefore,
if you are talking about net immigration, which is what I am talking
about, you can, in effect, put students to one side as not affecting
that balance in the medium term. That brings you down to the two
major categories, which are EU migrants and non-EU. As far as
EU migrants are concerned, they are only a third of net foreign
immigration. We expect the numbers to decline in coming years—and
I can say more about that if you like—but in any case, as
we well know, we cannot place controls on them, so the argument
narrows down to where you were earlier with the Minister as to
what we do about non-EU migrants. The Government have trebled
work permits from 50,000 a year roughly to 150,000 a year. If
we were to move to a system whereby, however many we took, the
expectation is they simply come for three or four years and then
leave, unless granted settlement within the quota, then you get
to a situation where these numbers could be brought together and
would bring you, we think, although we are still working on it,
within sight of balanced migration. We would recommend that as
something to think about and maybe to suggest that the Government
gives some study to, both because we think it is a good idea but
also because of a wider reason which is that there is, I would
suggest, a lack of focus in government policy at the moment. There
has been a lot of admirable hard work in putting in place the
levers that are needed to have a sensible policy, but no policy—at
least as far as the public understands it. I think that a policy
which said that our eventual aim is to go for balanced migration
would be very good for public confidence and would help to ease
some of the concerns and tensions in our own society.
Q547 Lord Skidelsky:
Sir Andrew, let me clear that I have understood the argument right.
The logic of your position is of course to restrict immigration
from the EU because you say we expect numbers to be censored but
there is actually no limit—it could be one million, it could
be two million—and if your concern is with a rapid increase
in population and with damage to social cohesion and so forth,
then you must be in favour of a limit on immigration which applies
to everyone. You cannot simply exempt one category because that
would contradict the purpose of your policy.
Sir Andrew Green: I understand the logic of
your question but it does turn on your first statement. If you
actually look at the record of immigration, it is that immigration
to and from the EU 15 is pretty well in balance. There is a blip
when you add some new members and then it goes down again, so
the record suggests that as the economic level of the new Member
countries approaches the level here, the numbers drop off. In
the case of Spain, Portugal and Greece, once they were within
30% of our standard of living, they decided that the sunshine
was better. Of course, the East Europeans have got much further
to go, that is perfectly clear, but there are a number of factors
if I perhaps list them very briefly and no more, because it is
central to your question. Firstly, most East Europeans who are
likely to move from the A8 have had a chance to do so. Secondly,
the number of 18-year-olds in Eastern Europe will decline by 30%
in the next 10 years. Thirdly, the other EU countries will have
to open their borders in three years' time. I have mentioned the
rising economic level. The exchange rate has gone against East
Europeans working here. Finally—and in a sense this is the
key point—it is arithmetic. There are at least half a million
East Europeans here, probably a million, or approaching that.
Not all of them are going to stay for ever. They will start to
go home. There are various opinion polls as to how long, but having
had a huge inflow in the last three years, we are going to start
to see a significant outflow. There are various ways you can model
that, and we are still working on it, so I cannot give you a conclusion,
but what I am pointing to is that the flow of these events is
going to reduce significantly the flow from the new EU, the whole
EU, and therefore it is possible and logical on our part to say,
let us focus on those countries where we do have powers to control
and have a policy that addresses that. That is a long answer but
a key point.
Q548 Lord Lamont of Lerwick:
I would like to ask you two questions. The first is, what do you
think are the most effective measures to reduce illegality, both
in immigration and in the employment of migrants? The second question
I would like to ask is, what do you think of the arguments the
Minister put forward for a constructive impact, a positive impact,
of immigration on GDP per capita?
Sir Andrew Green: On the first one, we support
strongly the Government's opposition to an amnesty. We believe
that illegal immigration undercuts British workers and it enables
unscrupulous employers to compete unfairly with honest ones. We
have four reasons for saying that. One is it is wrong in principle
to reward people who for many years have behaved illegally and
indeed have benefited from the welfare state in terms of education
and health but without paying into it. Secondly, it will not work.
We issue two million visas every year and by definition that is
to nationals who might not be going home at the end of it. They
come here and they find that wages are between five and 25 times
what they are at home, so of course if the present lot of illegals
have been given an amnesty, this lot are going to take their place.
That is surely obvious. It has certainly been the experience of
Italy and Spain. In the past 20 years Italy has granted five amnesties,
Spain six. Every time there were more applicants than the last
time. Indeed, in the last two amnesties 700,000 in each country
applied. Frankly, it is extremely foolish to suggest that an amnesty
would help. Thirdly, it is also extremely expensive. The IPPR
press release claimed that it would net the Treasury £1 billion.
That is completely false. They took no account of the extra cost
of half a million people on the books on the welfare state. They
also assumed that all those legalised would get 50% more than
the minimum wage. We looked at that more carefully. We reckon
it will cost between £0.8 and £1.8 billion and in later
years £5 billion. Plus—this brilliant idea—it
adds half a million people to the housing lists for social housing.
They have already gone up from one million to 1.5 million in the
last five years or so. That would then be another half million.
Finally the administrative difficulties—how do you know?
The proposal is, as I understand it, after ten years you grant
these people citizenship. How do you know they have been here
10 years? By definition, they are undocumented. Thus I think the
Government are absolutely right to oppose it very firmly indeed.
On your second point about GDP per head, I think your evidence
is pointing to the fact that it is pretty small. You can produce
more sophisticated attempts—
Q549 Lord Lamont of Lerwick:
I was just wondering what you thought about the Minister's arguments
Sir Andrew Green: Well, he tried, and there
may be something in it, but the burden of my song really is that
you have to have a balance between such benefits as there may
be from immigration and the costs, which I have outlined and which,
as I say, I think are relevant in reaching that balance.
Q550 Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market:
Migration creates economic benefits for migrants and their families,
many of whom acquire citizenship eventually in the UK. Should
the Government take account of the economic benefits to migrants
when assessing the economic impact of immigration and in settling
immigration policy?
Sir Andrew Green: It is certainly beneficial
to migrants; that is why they come. It is not necessarily beneficial
to the countries from which they come. I think the prime obligation
on the UK Government is to UK citizens. Although I think that
is a factor, I do not think it is a big one.
Q551 Lord Lawson of Blaby:
Presumably the Government is in the process of introducing this
new points-based system partly to get what I think the Minister
called a better mix but also, without giving any numbers, to exercise
a tighter control over the overall numbers. What is your view
of the system that they are proposing?
Sir Andrew Green: Well, first of all, it is
described as an Australian system, but it is not—for a key
reason, which is that the Australian system has a limit. That
is the point of it. This one does not have a limit. Secondly,
it is not a huge change. What they have done is to replace a set
of criteria by a system which would actually give you sufficient
points if you met the same criteria, so it is a very limited change.
There are some risks that it will be overwhelmed by applications
because it is now much easier. You will be able to go on the website
and see if you qualify. The American quota for H1B visas for Indians
of 65,000 was filled in the first day, so I think the Home Office
needs to be aware of that possibility. The essential point is
both the two tiers you were talking about with the Minister, Tier
1 and Tier 2, lead almost automatically to settlement, so it brings
you back to the point I made earlier; why, if the need for them
is temporary, are we giving them permanent settlement? I think
I will leave it there.
Q552 Lord Lawson of Blaby:
As I understand it, that may well apply to Tier 2 where the "need"
is temporary, or at least there is no guarantee that it will last,
but Tier 1, as I understand it, is not based on that sort of thing
at all. It is based on getting people of considerable quality
who will be given permanent settlement because it is felt that
they contribute and it is nothing to do with anything temporary.
That aside, you have said that, in your opinion, there should
be immigration but it should be limited so that there is no net
immigration, so the population remains static.
Sir Andrew Green: Broadly.
Q553 Lord Lawson of Blaby:
What criteria would you advocate for the immigration which you
think should be permitted?
Sir Andrew Green: Well, I think that, in a sense,
flows from what I have tried to describe. It is a moderately complex
picture with different kinds of immigrant which you have to treat
in different ways, as has come out very clearly this afternoon.
What I am advocating is that the Government should have a policy
and that that policy should have an objective and that objective
should be understood by the public. If you take balanced migration
as an objective, then you can direct your various policies in
that direction. I do not think that they have got to that point
yet. There is a very positive case for lower immigration which
is not often made. It would provide better training; it would
provide higher productivity; there would be more opportunities
for older workers, for the long-term unemployed, for holiday work;
you would get greater mobility within the UK; you would have steadier
house prices; and you would have less pressure on public services,
less on the environment. Although it is outside your terms of
reference, I think you would have much better prospects for integration.
There is a really positive case for looking at a way in which
we can have a moderate level of migration with which we can all
be comfortable. I think I was ruled out of order when I was about
to give you the public opinion figures but they are very, very
strong. My view would be that we are not going to get effective
integration unless we take the sting out of this, unless we take
people's concerns out of it. Two-thirds of the public are concerned
that we are losing our own culture. That is a very big number
and I will not go into the other big numbers but you all know
them. In that situation, it seems to me what we need is a Government
policy that says, "This is the way we are going; we are going
to get it under control." I think at the moment it is just
too diffuse.
Chairman: Sir Andrew, thank you very
much for your evidence and my apologies once again for the delay
in your being able to give it.
|
