Sir Andrew Green: Blundering into war in Syria would be pure foolishness

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK. He was British Ambassador to Syria from 1991 to 1994.

The Syrian decision to permit an immediate inspection of the suburbs of Damascus allows a little more time for reflection. It is sorely needed. 

The government has promised to consult Parliament before providing weapons to the Syrian opposition. It is therefore inevitable that they must consult before taking part in an armed attack on the Syrian state. 

When they do so, there are three questions that should be pressed home.

First, is the government’s real objective to remove the regime?

If so, they will not succeed. Syria is now in a state of civil war of great complexity. This is not about a brutal dictator oppressing a populace who seek nothing but their democratic rights. The opposition certainly contains democrats (who agree with each other on very little) but the heart of opposition in Syria has long been the Muslim Brotherhood, albeit viciously suppressed for 40 years.

Sir Andrew Green: Immigration and control. The Public Administration Committee criticism of the Government is unfair.

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK

The furore caused by the Public Administration Select Committee’s report on immigration statistics stems largely from the language they adopted. The facts of the matter have been known for some time and do not affect the thrust of government policies, nor the success that they are now delivering.

To describe the target of one of the government’s most important and sensitive policies as “little more than guess work” was bound to be jumped on by the immigration industry and the left wing press. It got the headlines, but has not added to public understanding of a complex and sensitive issue.

The roots of this problem go back to the decision by the Conservative government in 1994 to abolish exit controls for travellers to the European Union. This was followed by a decision by Labour in 1998 to abolish exit checks to the rest of the world. As a result, for nearly twenty years, no British government has had any idea who is in the country.

The problem is a challenging one, since roughly 100 million people arrive in Britain every year of whom 60 million are British and the other 40 million are foreigners. To have an accurate record of their comings and goings would be a massive IT operation. Both the Labour and Conservative governments have been attempting this for a number of years. but have run into both practical difficulties and objections from the European Commission who believe that such efforts are a diminution of the right to free movement. Like most IT projects, its completion date is going backwards and its cost is going upwards.

It is important to recognise, however, that the census provides a cross check on the accuracy or otherwise of the annual immigration figures. They have not been too far out, although the most recent census revealed that the International Passenger Survey (IPS) had missed nearly half a million East Europeans between 2004 and 2011. This was partly because they had inadequate cover at the minor airports at which they arrived and partly because many might well have changed their intentions after their arrival.  (They only count as migrants if they declare an intention to stay for more than a year).

It is statistically the case that, given the relatively small sample sizes, the margin of error is plus or minus 17 per cemt. When we enquired about increasing the sample size, we were told that the margin of error could be halved but at a cost of about £3 million a year.  The Home Office apparently judged that, in the current financial climate, there were better ways of spending the money.

Whatever its limitations, the immigration target has proved to be extremely valuable. It has acted as a focus both for public opinion and for Government policy. The latter is especially important, as many government departments are inherently pro-immigration. The annual immigration numbers have also confirmed the direction of travel. If net migration has been brought down from even approximately 250,000 to 150,000 in three years, the government must be on the right course.

Indeed so. This is the first government in many decades to take a serious approach to controlling immigration and certainly the first to make any significant impact on it. It is unfortunate that the waters should have been mudded in this way.

Sir Andrew Green: What does immigration mean for public debt?

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK

Today’s report by the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has been presented by some as a boost for the immigration lobby.  Substantial immigration does reduce the public debt / GDP ratio – but only for a period.

The more fundamental story, however, is that the OBR have found no definitive evidence of any particular economic benefit from immigration.  They therefore had to assume that migrants have the same economic characteristics as natives.

Any benefit from higher immigration, therefore, derives primarily from the fact that they have a higher proportion of working age.  This is what helps to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP.  As the OBR recognised, however, migrants also get older and add to age-related expenditure.  So higher migration only delays some of the fiscal challenges of an ageing population rather than resolving them permanently.  If we go down this road ever higher levels of immigration will be required as the last lot grow older – a kind of giant Ponzi scheme which, in effect, passes the problem on to our grand children.

Sir Andrew Green: There should not be an amnesty for illegal immigrants

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK

The Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi has achieved some headlines today with his call for an amnesty for illegal immigrants.  This he describes as a “siesmic shift” in immigration policy, designed to attract ethnic votes.

Two minutes thought should dispose of this idea.  An amnesty would make a bad situation worse; it would not be especially attractive to existing migrants who would face competition from the newly legalised workers, and it would certainly enfranchise a large number who, for cultural rather than policy reasons, are strongly inclined to vote Labour.

Experience elsewhere is highly instructive for those prepared to examine it.  Italy has conducted five amnesties in the last 20 years and Spain has granted six. On almost every occasion the number of applications increased.  This surely suggests that amnesties actually increase illegal immigration and build problems for the future.

They are also very costly.   A recent LSE report admitted that the longer-term costs of benefits could be £2 billion a year.  Even this huge sum did not include post-retirement costs.  Zahawi’s solution of restricting access to benefits would, even if it was legally sustainable, undermine his main purpose.

Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch: The Government now has a chance of hitting its migration target. But it must act on in-work benefits.

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK

Readers of Conservative Home should be greatly encouraged by this week’s news that net migration is down by over a third.  It now stands at 153,000 for the year ending September 2012.  This gives the Government a fighting chance of getting close to their target of tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament.

Public opinion demands no less.  The latest census reveals that four million immigrants arrived in a ten year period.  This doubled our foreign-born population and leaves us with a massive task of integration.  Looking ahead, the official population projections show that if the inflow is allowed to continue at its present average rate of 200,000 a year, the population of the UK will be driven up from 63 million to 70 million in 14 years.  Five million of that total would be the result of immigration. That would be the equivalent of the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bradford, Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol.  Where on earth will we find the money to pay for that?

Sir Andrew Green: Immigration control should not impede economic growth

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK.

Does the government’s political imperative to get immigration down to acceptable levels conflict with their economic imperative to stimulate economic growth? 

For business generally, the answer is a resounding “no”.  There are no limits on the transfer of international staff, vital to so many companies based here.  Only half of the available work permits (about 20,000 a year) have, so far, been taken up.  Special visas for entrepreneurs and investors are unlimited but the take up has been very limited – only 360 entrepreneurs and 300 investors had taken advantage of these routes by last Autumn.  Meanwhile, the arrival of 1.5 million business visitors every year suggests that Britain is indeed open for business.

Most of the complaints nowadays are about process, not limits.  The process has, indeed, become absurdly bureaucratic.  An attempt by Labour to make the issue of visas “transparent and objective” has utterly failed – for the obvious reason that the two million who apply for visas every year have circumstances so diverse that even 800 pages of regulations cannot prescribe the answers.  It must be a major task for the new Minister of Immigration to restore to the system the human element sometimes known as common sense.   

Sir Andrew Green: There is little sign of progress towards the government’s migration pledge

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of Migrationwatch UK

I would expect Conservatives to be very concerned about today’s immigration figures while the immigration industry rejoices. Net migration fell last year from 252,000 to 216,000 but the drop is not statistically significant. There is thus very little progress to show nearly half way through the government’s term.

The public are bound to ask whether the government’s pledge to reduce net migration to tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament is achievable and, if so, what more needs to be done.

The reasons for the slow progress are clear. The immigration rules are so complex that they have taken two years to review and many of the changes have not yet taken effect – partly because the courts do not allow the government to change the rules on those already here. The numbers will come down in future years but nobody can be sure that they will be below 100,000 by the end of this Parliament.

Sir Andrew Green: Net migration will fall, despite this week's figures. But will it fall enough for the Government to hit its target?

Sir Andew Green is Chairman of MigrationWatch UK.

Thursday’s immigration figures were disappointing for the government but by no means disastrous. They covered the year to mid-2011, which almost coincides with the first year of the Coalition government.

The figures showed that net migration is still running at about 250,000 a year.  This, of course, would have very serious consequences if it were allowed to continue but it is worth pointing out that only one of the Government's measures had come into effect in that period. This was the temporary limit of about 25,000 on work permits in the year to April 2011. Even that measure (and the subsequent cap of 20,700) had no effect because the recession and general administrative confusion held the total below those limits anyway.

In the year to the end of June 2011, British net emigration increased by 22,000 while EU net immigration increased by about 8,000. Non-EU net immigration increased by 30,000, mainly due to more students from the Indian Sub-Continent. 

The Government have taken comfort from a subsequent small decline in visas issued in the second half of 2011 for workers and students. This allowed them to suggest that the net migration figure will improve in the coming months.

Some reduction seems likely by the time we have the full figures for calendar 2011 (next August) but the key number – net migration – is likely to remain high at about 200,000. This number will fall further as the government’s measures take effect but there is a very long way to go. Pressure on the Government to fulfil their manifesto promise to get net migration down to tens of thousands is, to say the least, likely to intensify.

Sir Andrew Green: What do the public really think about immigration?

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of MigrationWatch.

The immigration industry is in a corner.  The government are proceeding with wide-ranging reform of the immigration system supported by very strong public opinion.  Special interest groups are fighting rear guard actions, often based on misrepresentation of government policy. Otherwise, there is nobody arguing against the need to reduce net immigration.  Even Labour’s spokesman on immigration, Chris Bryant, was obliged to admit in Parliament that “yes of course we think that immigration has been too high and that it should be lower”.

Perhaps that is why some on the left are seeking to suggest that public opinion is not what it seems to be. The IPPR, the Migrants' Rights Network and others, have latched onto a paper produced by the Migration Observatory entitled “Thinking behind the numbers – understanding public opinion on immigration in Britain”.  And guess what... the BBC News website lapped it up too.

This paper reported the results of an opinion poll which sought the public’s views on various categories of migrant and whether they should be reduced (or increased).

They found, for example, that only about one third of the public wanted the number of students reduced – no doubt for the obvious reason that most of them go home after their courses. The picture on workers was more mixed; 59% wanted restaurant staff cut back but only 31% wanted the number of highly skilled workers reduced.

Sir Andrew Green: David Cameron must now show that he is serious about reducing immigration

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of MigrationWatch.

David Cameron has repeatedly committed his government to reducing net immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands.  This week the cabinet will decide how to go about it. These are long term decisions that are vital to the future of our country. This is not about money.  Economic crises come and go.  Demographic changes come and stay. 

The key question is, in essence, very simple.  Are the government serious about getting immigration down or will they fold in the face of special pleading from employers and academics together with Liberal Democrat opposition to any significant measures?   Theresa May’s first speech on the subject last Friday was encouraging.  It set out, in broad outline, the measures that are needed but can she get it through cabinet?

The issue runs much wider than the cap on economic migration which recently has hogged the headlines and provided a convenient target for all those lawyers and employers who do very nicely out of present levels of immigration. Recently, they seem to have made all the running but, while the concerns of special interest groups must be addressed, wider considerations must also be brought to bear.  The issue is about the whole future of our society.  Labour's three million immigrants and the chaos in which they have left the immigration system have set in train an escalator for our population and for the immigrant element within it.

The previous government tried to brush aside the impact of immigration on population, claiming that official projections are not forecasts.  Of course not.  But to leave it at that would be just indolence.  There are only three factors, birth, death and migration.  The official assumptions on the first two are very cautious so, if immigration is allowed to continue at present levels, it is a racing certainty that our population will reach 70 million in 20 years time and 80 million in about 50 years. 

Sir Andrew Green: The impact of recent immigration on our education system runs into tens of billions of pounds

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of MigrationWatch.

In many parts of England children are now being turned away from the school of their parents choice as primary schools come under growing pressure of numbers.  For both the children and their parents this can be hugely disruptive.

A report for London Councils predicts that the capital “faces reception place shortfalls of more than 18,300 in total by 2014”. Birmingham, is estimated to have a shortfall of 3,000 places. Slough’s birth rate has increased by 873 children a year over the last six years, equivalent to 29 reception classes. Bristol, Leicester, Manchester, Nottingham – the list of councils clamouring for extra funding for school places is growing. Overall, leaked Whitehall documents suggest an additional 350,000 primary places will be needed over the next four years.

Why has this happened? The i word – net immigration. Under Labour, immigration quadrupled. Many of those coming here were young people, hoping to do that most natural of things, to have children. Between 1998 and 2008, total births increased by 11%. Births to women born in the UK fell by 3% - while births to women and fathers born outside the UK more than doubled, increasing by 134% per cent.  We now find that in 2009 one quarter of all births in England and Wales were to a mother born abroad.  For London that figure was over 50%

The impact on our education system is now becoming clear. There are now more than 1,500 schools in England where more than half of pupils speak English as a second language – up from 866 in 1997. One in seven primary school pupils does not speak English as their first language. But these facts, disturbing enough for our social cohesion say nothing about the costs of all this.

New research by Migrationwatch has found that, so far, educating the children of immigrants who have arrived over the past twelve years has cost more than £15 billion. And the impact of this baby boom is set to be felt for years to come. Over the next five years, over half a million more school places will be needed for the children of recent immigrants – costing a further £39 billion.  And, over the next ten years when public expenditure will be under intense pressure, we are likely to need one million extra school places.  The cost of this will be of the order of £95 billion.

Sir Andrew Green: The cost of an amnesty for illegal immigrants would be astronomical

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of MigrationWatch.

Nobody has given much thought to the implications of an amnesty for illegal immigrants in the UK.  Both the "old parties" dismissed it out of hand - and rightly so.  It was left to Boris Johnson to promote the idea for rather transparent reasons of political advantage. 

Then up pops the new bright star of the political firmament pushing the Lib Dem proposal for "earned regularisation” after ten years illegal presence in Britain.

The idea is absurd but it is now worth listing why that conclusion is inescapable.   Essentially, amnesties do not "work" and have been shown not to do so.  Italy has had five amnesties in 25 years and Spain six. Here is the number of applications on each occasion;

It is, to put it mildly, self evident that amnesties encourage further illegal immigration.  Ah! says Clegg but we will tighten up the borders. Quite how is not explained and, in any case, is irrelevant.  Most illegals arrive here legally on visas and stay on to work illegally and send money home.  With wage rates in Britain between 5 and 25 times those in sub-Saharan Africa that incentive is unlikely to change. 

Sir Andrew Green: The Government's Points Based immigration system is a potential disaster

Sir Andrew Green is Chairman of MigrationwatchUK.  He was formerly HM Ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia.

Ministers have perfected a patter when talking about immigration. “We’re sorry – we’ve made mistakes, but we’re now getting it under control with our new, tough, Australian-style Points Based System”, they say. Last week, in his first speech on immigration in two years, Gordon Brown trumpeted the merits of the Points Based System (PBS) for immigration and citizenship.  He claimed that "together they constitute a fundamental reform of a decade's old system - a reform founded on the British values of personal responsibility and civic duty."

Sadly, this “reform” fails entirely to address the central challenge we face: by 2029, official forecasts show that our population will hit – and then exceed – 70 million. 70% of this growth will be due to immigration. Put another way, in 25 years we will need to build seven cities the size of Birmingham to house new migrants. To avoid that, migration needs to be reduced dramatically – down from the 237,000 net migration in 2007, down also from the 150,000 net migration forecast for 2008, to around 50,000 – as the graph below shows (click it to enlarge). Bear in mind that even this cut would mean our population will rise by nearly 4 million.

The Points Based System fails completely to meet this challenge. Like a fake Rolex, look at it closely and it is fatally flawed. Its coverage is very limited, it is very complex, there is enormous scope for abuse and there is every risk that it will collapse in chaos.  If it does, our ability to remove those who have fooled the system is pathetically weak.  So, if our challenge is to stop the population hitting 70 million, the PBS is not fit for purpose.