Alp Mehmet from MigrationWatch challenges the assertions made by Matt Cavanagh in his article for this publication on immigration but agrees there should be an informed debate.
In his article on 9 November Matt Cavanagh of the IPPR challenged the idea that Britain is “full up” and called for a proper debate on population.
He could start by learning a little more about it. The ONS projections do not “simply extrapolate” from existing trends. The projection is constructed on the cohort-component method, a demographic accounting process which, among other things, takes into account the population age-structure and its evolution over time. The assumed death rate takes into account likely future changes in mortality and is not a simple extrapolation. Nor are the birthrate and migration components based on “extrapolations of current trends” although they assume a constant level after a decade or so. That level is a conservative assumption in each case, considerably lower than the latest levels both of fertility and of net migration. Were those to be incorporated into the projection, the total would be much greater.
Projections state what must happen if the assumptions come to pass. For those who claim that the ONS projections will be seriously wrong it is necessary to state which of their three components is going to change. Radical change in the birth rate or death rate is very unlikely. Attention must therefore be focused on migration where the pressures, apart from government policy, are mainly upwards.
Cavanagh claims that ONS population projections have proved unreliable in the past. He quotes erroneous projections but does not say that they are half a century old. Migration played no part whatsoever at that time. Net migration was then negative, as it had been, with the exception of a few years, for many preceding centuries In fact, during the past 50 years, the ONS have been accurate to +/- 2½% in projecting populations 20 years ahead.
As for the suggestion that Migration Watch concerns about population are based on “accelerating population growth from migrant babies” this is completely irrelevant. Migrant birth-rates are not incorporated into the ONS projections in any way; the same average is assumed to apply to all.
Almost 25% of births in England and Wales are now to immigrant women. At present, according to the ONS, the birth rates of immigrant mothers are equivalent to a family size of 2.5 children compared with 1.85 to native born women (which includes UK-born members of ethnic minority groups). The ONS currently makes the cautious assumption of a long-term fertility rate equivalent to 1.84 children per woman although the most recent actual level is 1.95 for the UK.
Cavanagh then moves on to the bizarre suggestion that “we should think a bit harder before we decide that it would be really so bad, or unmanageable, if we carried on growing through migration at, say, 150,000 per year”. The effect of migration at this level would take the population of the UK to 70 million in twenty years and 75 million in forty years.
The key point, however, is that it would not stop there. Our population will continue to grow indefinitely unless either our birth rate collapses or we get immigration under control. At present immigration accounts for 68% of the increase in our population.
When it comes to population densities, Cavanagh carefully chooses the UK rather than England which is the destination of about 90% of migrants. If you take England you find that, leaving aside small islands and city states, we are indeed the sixth most crowded country in the world after Bangladesh, Taiwan, South Korea, and (just) Lebanon and Rwanda. It will not be much of a comfort to those struggling in an overcrowded tube to know that the Maldives, Aruba, Mayotte and other assorted islands are more crowded that England.
The basic facts of the case are inescapable. England is extremely crowded. Over 2/3rds of population increase is due to immigration. So the choice is clear cut either we bring immigration under control or we allow our population to increase continuously. The public have certainly made up their minds. Our recent opinion poll showed that 80% believe that England is crowded while a BBC text poll found that 94% agreed that Britain is full.
So let us have the debate on population but let it be based on an understanding of current methods of projecting population and let the enthusiasts for immigration explain exactly why they want more people in this small and crowded island.