A one-off amnesty on illegal immigrants could help make it easier to assess migrant numbers and generate extra funds for councils to support them, says Jill Rutter
The leaders of four local authorities today have publicised their concerns about the statistics used to calculate population numbers. They argue that the new methodology used by the government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) underestimates the migrant population and that they are not being funded for the services they provide for migrants.
On first impressions, this sounds like a gripe from local authorities, and an attempt to lobby for more money prior to the public spending settlement this autumn. Most migrants are young and fit and do not tend to be heavy users of public services. But what is the real story? And how should central government respond to local authorities that say they are not being properly funded?
International migration to the UK has increased since the mid-1990s. These increases have been caused by asylum arrivals, sustained work permit and other work visa flows, and large-scale migration from the new European Union member states, particularly Poland.
Counting and predicting migration flows is extremely difficult, making public service resource allocation and planning difficult. The geographical dispersal of many recent immigrant groups, especially into areas that have not seen much immigration in the past, may place particular strains on particular parts of the UK.
Where resource allocation and delivery capacity cannot respond quickly, local services may be placed under pressure. The government needs to acknowledge the unpredictable nature of migration and retain a migration-related contingency element in local government finance.
Until this year, local government funding (excluding school funding) relied on data collected in the ten-yearly census and through GP registrations, with adjustments made for births and deaths. These population estimates did not account for migrants who arrived after the date of the last census.
In response to criticism, the ONS changed the way it estimates population numbers. From now on, population estimates will be updated using the quarterly ONS labour force survey, in combination with the international passenger survey conducted at the ports of entry.
However, the new method of data collection indicates that London local authorities have lost migrant populations. Kensington and Chelsea, one of the four that is protesting, appears to have lost 20,800 people.
London Councils, the local authority umbrella group, argues that this data does not reflect what it sees on the ground. The ippr’s own research supports this view. We argue that the labour force survey (LFS), as presently conducted, is an imprecise measure of population numbers, particularly for London local authorities.
The LFS operates by interviewing a small sample of people across the whole of the UK. Migrant numbers are then estimated by scaling up the LFS data. The LFS sample size is very small, too small to make reasonable estimates of some of the smaller migrant groups, such as Eritreans, Bolivians or Thais.
More crucially, the LFS relies on people consenting to interviews. If potential interviewees are fearful of authorities, as most undocumented migrants are, they usually do not respond.
So what data on migrants should be used? A larger LFS sample would be better. Within the next five years, biometric ID data could also be utilised to calculate population numbers - if the system works.
But ID cards will not capture undocumented migrants - at least 430,000 people, according to Home Office estimates. The government cannot afford to remove them, as this would cost at least £4.7bn, while the deportation budget stands at £270m.
The ippr argues that the only economically viable policy option is to grant a one-off amnesty for undocumented migrants who have not committed a criminal offence.
Most undocumented migrants do not pay tax at present. Ippr research shows that such an amnesty could generate the Treasury around £1bn in tax revenue. Such an amnesty makes economic sense and would more than pay for the extra funds these councils say they need.
· Jill Rutter is a senior research fellow on the migration team of the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr).
Monday May 14, 2007
SocietyGuardian.co.uk
http://society.guardian.co.uk/asylumseekers/comment/0,,2079422,00.html
