Donald Chesworth Memorial Lecture

03-11-2009

Migration and Diversity: creating a society that is at ease with itself”

Toynbee Hall 3 November 2009

When delivering lectures such as this it has become traditional to say a few words about the individual in whose honour the lecture is given but for me, on this occasion, it is a real pleasure to pay tribute to the memory of Donald Chesworth. He was regarded as a gifted politician but, unlike so many, did not seek self-glorification and was uncomfortable with publicity other than for his causes. Consequently, his achievements went largely unknown by a wider audience than those around him. He was a Labour Party member of the London County Council, the Greater London Council and the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and his ability to build coalitions outside his own party together with his determination enabled him to achieve a great deal. He helped rebuild the community after the Notting Hill race riots. He was committed to education as a vehicle for opportunity for all and he was able to raise money for his initiatives. He devoted himself to his good causes at the expense of his own livelihood.  He richly deserved his OBE in 1987.

My colleague of many years on the Council of the Electoral Reform Society Michael Meadowcroft wrote a full and moving obituary of him along these lines and stated that “his long period as Warden of Toynbee Hall was a productive time and gave him a base from which to continue his real skill of putting together the pieces of the political jigsaw in order to bring another project into being or to resolve another injustice. His apparently considerable patience was by no means entirely natural and it stemmed from a reluctant but shrewd acceptance of human nature even though in his heart he never understood why his own commonsense and deep sensitivity were not shared. To Donald they were not special attributes but simply the individual's natural contribution to civilisation and humanity. It was this attribute which ensured that involvement in a project or campaign never excluded personal contact with friends.”

Although I never knew him myself I was interested to learn that Donald Chesworth was an avowed world federalist. That touches a chord close to my heart as I have just returned from one week in New York attending the annual Council meeting of the World Federalist Movement of which I have been the Chair of the Executive Committee for very many years and been a member for more than twenty. In the House of Commons I acted as the Treasurer of the Parliamentary Group for World Government and during the same time I was the Chairman of the International Council of Parliamentarians for Global Action (previously Parliamentarians for World Order).

There is another connection which has resonance for me in Donald’s links with Bangladesh and his work on behalf of British Bangladeshis. In my present role as Chief Executive of IAS I opened our first overseas office in 2000 in Sylhet, Bangladesh and have been privileged to have a close relationship with that country and the probashis here especially in pursuing their difficulties over recruiting chefs and kitchen-porters for the curry restaurant trade. It is of great value both to our community and to our economy and has given us, in the view of the late Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, our national dish of chicken tikka masala. Seldom has another culture so influenced the life of the UK.

Donald died on 24 May 1991 going to a meeting which he had organised to try to help Kurdish refugees – work which very much has occupied IAS in our work with asylum seekers.

With all these connections I hope that you can understand why I feel that it is such a privilege for me tonight to deliver this lecture in his memory. I hope that he would have approved of the title “Migration and Diversity: creating a society that is at ease with itself.” 

Migration is a global phenomenon, whether it is people with portable skills taking them where they are needed or the forced migration perpetrated by persecution and economic deprivation. This needs a global response and is an issue very much for world federalists. The former President of the World Federalist Movement Sir Peter Ustinov whom I had the privilege of knowing as a friend for many years used to describe federalism in the UK as the “f” word in British politics. Here federalism is largely misunderstood, rather in the same way as the Lisbon Treaty, as being a recipe for transnational tyranny or global big government. In fact, there are more people who live under a federal system of government than those who do not and the general British attitude towards federalism is incomprehensible to Americans, Canadians, Indians and others whose constitutions enshrine the concept.  

The American founding fathers changed their original confederation to a federal system and the result is that an American President has less power domestically than a British Prime Minister who, at present, does not have to worry about states’ rights or compromising judgments from a Supreme Court. We must wait to see if, as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly flex their muscles, we may yet see something of that within the new devolved British constitution. Put simply, federalism allows decisions to be taken at the lowest appropriate level – so it is essentially an empowerment of the people which Abraham Lincoln understood in his Gettysburg address – and reserves to a higher authority only those issues which can be resolved at that higher level.  

The global financial crisis has reminded the world that the ad hoc meetings of the G7 and now the G20 is an inadequate substitute for a properly constituted decision making body along democratic principles at the world level. Maybe there is now a greater opportunity for internationalism with the election of Barack Obama and the change in attitude in his administration encapsulated in his remarks in Prague on 5 April that he seeks the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons: the words of a true global citizen. We are optimistic that many of those international treaties from which the USA has stood aloof, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Criminal Court, will now be adopted by the most powerful nation on earth. 

The reason I mention this is because increasingly migration is ranked alongside those global phenomena which need a global response – global warming, genocide, nuclear proliferation, money-laundering, terrorism and worldwide pandemics like AIDS.[1] In its most unpleasant form of human smuggling and trafficking it is acknowledged universally that migration needs transnational co-operation and a global response. The need for co-operation among states on such issues has long been recognised in Europe. Indeed, one of the founding four pillars of the European Union is the free movement of peoples. We are now well on the route, even if the journey is a slow one, to a Common European Asylum System and a common immigration one will not be far behind – its roots are already apparent. Logically, there cannot be a level playing field in trade and economic co-operation without a rationalisation of who are admitted as migrant workers. 

Why is it that this axiom is taking so long to establish? It is because in this interdependent globalised world, which is seeing the death of national sovereignty and the old Westphalian order of the supremacy of states, there remains the issue of whom is admitted to a national territory and to citizenship of that territory as the final bastion of the nation state. We must not expect national governments to relinquish such control too easily. Decisions on fiscal management, setting interest rates, relations with other countries and war itself can no longer be taken in isolation from the international community: migration controls and citizenship still can – although they are already eroded in Europe as I have explained and migration decisions will need increasingly to be subject to greater global considerations such as brain drain from developing countries and linkage to development, mutual recognition of skills and qualifications, circulatory migration and refugee flows. 

One obvious candidate for joined up Government thinking is the relationship between development aid and remittances sent home by foreign workers which currently does not exist. A look at the website of the World Bank will show how in many poor countries the amount of remittances exceeds official development aid. The money sent home by workers in the UK goes directly to stimulate the local economies of where the families live and does not get lost in government coffers or pockets where it should not go. On my visits to my offices in Bangladesh and Pakistan I can see how these economies are benefiting with new businesses, shops, hospitals and other facilities. Places like Sylhet in Bangladesh and Mirpur in Azad Kashmir are inherently poor rural communities yet you can buy all kinds of cosmetics and other items because the local people have the spending power from the money they are sent. Indeed, in Mirpur I saw signs which said that sterling pounds are an acceptable currency for purchases! Denying workers from these regions the ability to come to the UK to work (as is now the case with lower skilled workers) will impact directly on these economies. Many of these workers do very well and some become millionaires here. Often they feel a responsibility towards their country of origin and will build hospitals, mosques and other facilities for local use. 

Governments are now realising the economic benefits of migration but this is against the democratic tension of existing residents often being fearful of newcomers both as to the effect on domestic jobs and on the impact on society and welfare expenditure. There is a delicate political path to be trodden. Unfortunately, opinion polls demonstrate that the general public is unable to distinguish an asylum seeker from a refugee and a regular migrant from the other two – often they are used synonymously. Yet in the UK there appears to be a recognition that migrant workers often do the jobs that UK residents are unwilling or unable to do if these are lower skilled and lower paid because the benefits system and the nature of such work make it unattractive (including some unpleasant jobs such as deboning carcasses or long hours and hard work in cramped kitchen conditions or patient care of the elderly). At the other end of the spectrum are the highly skilled migrants who come to work in the City and can command at least six figure salaries and large bonuses. Then there are the students who bring so much wealth to the economy in overseas student fees and their spending power while they are here. Even major education institutions like the London School of Economics derive over half their income from this source. Consequently, this category of migrant is fought over by many countries, especially in the Antipodes, aggressively marketing their own institutions.

Consequently, migration is not a homogenous phenomenon but has many different constituent parts which need to be addressed in different ways. This is the dilemma for Government. How to make it easier for those to come who bring economic benefit but tighten up on those who are unpopular migrants who are seen to bring with them problems rather than benefits for the host community? Government does not have an entirely free hand as we have to honour international obligations such as examining individual claims of those seeking protection under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. As we know, European Union citizens exercising their Treaty rights can come to the UK in search of work and can only be expelled if individually their presence is non-conducive to the public good and even then are likely to be able to return. 

We need a new paradigm through which we look at migration as a benign phenomenon rather than a threat to national economies and cohesion. This, of course, begs the question that national economies and cohesion are already in a state of happy equilibrium which, in itself, is manifestly untrue. It is politically inept to suggest open borders but there has to be a more mature way of migration management than just pulling up the drawbridge. When Greece in 1981 and then Portugal and Spain in 1986 joined the European Union there was far greater disparity in the economic wealth between the northern European and the Mediterranean countries. One might have expected massive migration from south to north. Some did happen but not on an unmanageable scale. This would indicate that there are many factors in a decision to leave home for work abroad. This is especially difficult for families who are uprooting themselves from their environmental, societal and linguistic familiarity.  

Too often the critics of migration fail to appreciate that these are not easy decisions for potential migrants to make. Migration is a manifestation of a globalised world: greater knowledge of other countries through the internet (which has also stimulated the use of the de facto international language of English) and electronic communication as well as widespread news coverage means that often we know more about what is happening the far side of the world than we do in our neighbours’ homes. 

First, we need to identify, share and promulgate the facts as against the fiction of migration because without that contextual approach the conclusions that we are likely to draw and also any policy or decisions based on those conclusions will be flawed in themselves. Perhaps it is because I am a lawyer that I am persuaded by the eclectic evidential analytical approach as well as testing theories by playing the devil’s advocate – for without assessing the strength of the opposing view one cannot be certain of the veracity of one’s own. 

Looking back on our history we have not been averse to importing leading politicians and Prime Ministers from Scotland and monarchs from the Netherlands and Germany. A loyal part of our armed forces comes from Nepal. We are and have been a trading nation and have used the benefits that migrants bring from the skills of the Huguenots to the cuisine of the Indian sub-continent. Refugees have added to this heritage: without them we would not have had Marks & Spencer or Sir Georg Solti. The list is endless. The Royal Ballet, that epitome of British culture, was founded by Dame Ninette de Valois. At the more popular end of culture what about the origins of our football players and managers? No doubt the anti-immigrants would say that these came here and assimilated – but if they had erected the barriers they now want we should not have seen them at all.  

The dichotomy is that with this background of immigration and the enrichment of our cultural life the British are still an insular people both geographically and emotionally. We seem to have an innate mistrust of foreigners and a fond belief that we can always do things better. Maybe the current economic crisis will change attitudes: but such an approach does mean that we tend to join things European late and arguably at a time not to our best advantage. Membership of the European Union could be one example and membership of the Eurozone, when it comes, will almost certainly be another. 

Do not get me wrong. I am proud of much of what Britain has achieved in the past both domestically and globally and I was privileged to be a Member of Parliament. But most of this was as a result of painful evolution rather than planned advance. Women only ceased to have their chattels accredited to their husbands in 1882 and those under the age of thirty had to wait until 1928 for the vote. We have just celebrated the 200^th anniversary of the abolition of slavery. Our main Race Relations Act of 1976 came into being only thirty years ago. Admittedly, other countries have done far worse but we should remember that attitudes can sometimes take generations to change. 

Against this background of migration and diversity what can we do to create a society at ease with itself? First, we should recognise our history which, woefully, is now taught so little in schools. That must change. If we do not know from where we have come we cannot see the road for the future. Secondly, we need to accept that diversity is a permanent feature of our society and of the world in an age of globalisation. It is not some temporary blip which can be reversed by migrants going home (whatever that may mean). Thirdly, we need to be clear that for society to be cohesive there can be no question of segregated categories of residents. Clearly, those who are here for temporary purposes will not enjoy all the rights of permanent residents (and we need to be clear what duration that implies – for me it is the limit of five years which the Government has drawn arbitrarily before a migrant can apply for indefinite leave to remain or right of residence which seems to me to be as good a time as any). Yet we must be careful to ensure that they enjoy equality before the law and freedom from discrimination. The question always should be not where people are from but what are they contributing towards society both in economic and social terms. 

We should not be ashamed of a human compact or charter of rights and responsibilities in which all are expected but are also assisted towards making a contribution. Those with disabilities want to make a contribution but need help in ensuring that they can do so in their chosen manner. Ours should be a facilitating society and not an indifferent one.

The evidence about UK attitudes to immigration from the Transatlantic Trends Immigration Survey 2008 shows us the magnitude of the problem and the poor quality of debate that results from prejudice being pre-eminent over the truth about migration. 

It points out that the British public has become increasingly worried about immigration over the last decade. Four key issues have dominated the public debate about migration in the UK in recent years: The arrival of over 1 million workers from the new EU Member States; intense scrutiny of the integration of the UK’s Muslim communities following the 7th July London bombings; a series of media scandals around ‘illegal’ immigration and border control; and growing resentment of the perceived burden migrants place on public resources, particularly social housing. 

Transatlantic Trends Immigration (TTI) surveyed public opinion on immigration in the US and six European Union (EU) countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and the UK. The survey was conducted by TNS Opinion, which interviewed approximately 1000 adults in each country in September 2008. The British public is more negative about immigration than opinion in all those other countries. 

So what should we do about it? Does it matter? Using false impressions on which to base immigration policy is flawed logic yet MPs reflect the view of their constituents and the Government will reflect public pinion. Therein lies the tension in immigration policy: to do what is right and in Britain’s best interests or to do what is popular. For too long we have seen measures introduced more for the delectation of the readers of the Mail and the Express rather than a proper analysis of the problem followed by sustainable policies. The British Social Attitudes Survey recorded a 10% increase in hostility towards immigrants between 1995 and 2003.  

There is now, however, overwhelming evidence of the economic benefits of migration. That is also the view of the public: over three quarters (77%) agree that migrants “help to fill jobs where there are shortages of workers” and almost as many (73%) agree that “migrants are hard workers.”

We live in a globalised world and both the European Commission and the British Government are now talking more about the benefits of circular migration – people coming for a short time, enhancing their skills and then returning to their country of origin. This is the current trend. Look at all the Eastern Europeans who came after their countries acceded to the EU who have now gone home. New research by IPPR - Shall we stay or shall we go: remigration trends among Britain’s immigrants – shows that more and more immigrants to this country are staying for a short time and then leaving. Over 190,000 non-British nationals left the UK in 2007.

Across Europe short-term migration is a growing phenomenon: immigrants spending less than four years in the UK doubled between 1996 and 2007. Many of those leaving are highly skilled workers and former students. Indeed, the reason that many decide to stay from non-European Economic Area countries is the difficulty they encounter in returning. The greatest boost to circulatory migration would be to grant multiple visas which would overcome this problem. The Government is now intent on breaking the link between temporary migration (such as those coming for work) and permanent settlement, currently allowed after five years. Yet, perhaps surprisingly, the majority of people surveyed do not back temporary migration programmes, in which migrant workers must leave the country after a defined period of time. They would prefer migrants to be given the chance to settle permanently in the UK. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming support for a Points Based System, especially to admit well-educated English speakers. 

All major political parties have as an aim the creation of public confidence in the immigration system – so opinion cannot be ignored. Clearly, one of the major issues is returns and removal of those who no longer have a legal right to remain. The other is the burden on public services, especially schooling and housing although these are very much local rather than national issues. Hitherto, these have been greater fears than that migrants are taking British workers’ jobs.  

What the survey does show, however, is that people can change their minds about migration once they have access to the facts – 9% of those polled changed their minds from undecided to positive about immigration simply as a result of answering the questions. That, however, was not true of those who started with a negative attitude. Yet more than half (62%) think that migration is more of a problem than an opportunity and that there are too many migrants in the UK from outside Europe (56%). Of all the countries surveyed only Malta rated immigration a higher concern than Britain. People who live in areas with high concentrations of immigrants and people who work or socialize with immigrants tend to be more positive about immigration.  

There is more concern about illegal than legal migration but alarmingly many believe that the majority of migrants are in the UK illegally. It is also an age and education matter: the older and less educated you are the more you are likely to be anti-immigrant. What is most worrying is that 34% of respondents thought that “most immigrants are in the UK illegally” and a further 9% thought that there were “equal numbers of legal and illegal immigrants.” In fact, even using a high estimate of the number of illegal migrants in the UK, they make up less than a fifth of the immigrant population. There is equal ignorance about the numbers of migrants in the UK: a Readers Digest/MORI poll found that on average the public estimated that 26% of the population belonged to an ethnic minority – the real figure was 7%. The European Social Survey 2002-3 asked respondents “Of every 100 people living in the UK, how many do you think were not born here?” 63% gave answers greater than 10 percent and 15% gave answers greater than 50 percent. The true figure at the time was around 8.3%. 

According to a recent poll by the German Marshall Fund, however, a majority of British respondents think that immigrants take jobs away from the native born. In a similar survey in 2007, almost two-fifths of British respondents cited immigration as one of the top two causes of job loss, and more than half believed that immigration reduced the wages of unskilled Britons.  

These beliefs stand in stark contrast to academic research. Economists and policy analysts point to strong evidence that immigration does not reduce native workers’ wages or increase their unemployment rates. The academic consensus – insofar as it exists – is that any negative impacts of immigration on wages and employment rates are modest at most, and that immigration is slightly beneficial to long-term economic growth and competitiveness. Large increases in immigration to the UK since 1997 have been based in part on this rationale.

On asylum it is in Britain’s best interests for fair policies to be adopted in all EU member states on the basis of solidarity and burden sharing. The British public want these decisions taken at national level – the theme of the French President’s Pact set out last year - yet migration flows to Europe cannot be determined on a national basis. If the legacy of Empire and widespread use of the English language is a desire for people to come to the UK more than elsewhere then we in the UK have a vested interest in burden sharing as events at Calais make apparent. It also makes sense on non-asylum migration. If we are not careful we shall be left behind and our interests will be damaged.  An EU ‘Blue Card’ scheme for highly-skilled workers, inspired by the US Green Card, was adopted by 24 Member States (not the UK) in May 2009. 

The message to any incoming Government must be that to act in isolation will damage Britain whereas to act in concert with agreed principles across Europe will ensure a fairer and more sustainable solution. This is especially relevant in view of the fact that the number of people seeking asylum in industrialised countries has grown for a second consecutive year according to the UN's refugee agency. Some 383,000 people applied for refuge in Europe, north America and other developed regions in 2008 - 12% more than in 2007, the UNHCR said. Most applicants were Iraqi, but the steepest rise in applications was from Afghanistan, with an increase of 85%. The overall growth has been partly fuelled by regional conflicts.

It is against this background that we see increasing intolerance towards asylum seekers from ostensibly civilized countries. Both Greece and Italy are likely to be taken to the European Court for their failure to admit asylum seekers to a proper process, in the latter’s part by sending back asylum seekers to Libya in clear contravention of the principle of non-refoulement. It was exemplified only recently by the Australian authorities which have said 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers in Indonesia will not be taken to Australia, their intended destination. The ethnic Tamil asylum seekers spent 10 days on an Australian customs ship in Indonesian waters. Indonesia agreed to take the group to have their claims examined but local officials refused to allow the Australian vessel to dock.

What are the facts about migration? First, almost 200 million people worldwide or 3% of the world’s population, live in a country other than the one in which they were born. In the UK it was estimated at about 8% in the 2001 Census which is unsurprising bearing in mind the legacy of British Empire and Commonwealth with so many of those countries having a settled population in the UK often for several generations and the nature of Britain’s trading links. Indeed, Chinese in Liverpool and Somalis in Wales and the north east arrived off the boats more than one hundred years ago. That figure may now have risen to more than 10% with the greatest number (over 1 million) from the Indian sub-continent but with the Irish in second place. 

Apart from the diaspora we must acknowledge that widespread use of the English language and the reputation of the UK as a fair society which still observes fundamental freedoms (despite recent serious Governmental threats to these) and an independent judiciary are all so-called “pull” factors for asylum seekers and others who have any choice in their destination. Any patriot should be proud of these attributes and not seek to deny or dilute them. 

In other countries the foreign born population can be more, such as Australia where it is 25%, 20% in Canada and 12% in the USA.  It is manifestly obvious that those countries are not, as a result, on the brink of disintegration and we should not allow hysteria in the UK to imagine that we cannot sustain such a high foreign born population. It is a function of the world in which we live where travel has become relatively cheaper and skills are taken where they are needed. Millions of people are travelling yet far fewer are doing so for permanent settlement. The French are not allowed by law to collect data on ethnicity but only on nationality yet the best estimate on the ethnic minority population is 13%, some 4% or so higher than in the UK despite our legacy of Empire and Commonwealth and the resultant large diaspora of citizens from those countries, many of them here now for several generations. Britain has been very good at assimilating foreigners and adopting their culture although less spectacular in its welcome. It was racism that underpinned the very first legislation to limit immigration, the Aliens Act 1905, which was directed at those Russian Jews fleeing the pogroms of the turn of that century. Subsequent legislation has mostly been restrictive. 

A World Bank report of April 2009[2] shows that in the 13 European Union countries surveyed foreign born workers make significant net positive contributions to the national tax and benefits systems.  

Yet in the UK migration is an emotive subject on which, rather like law and order, everyone has an opinion but, sadly, the debate is debased by a lack of knowledge giving way to prejudice and press hyperbole. We need to have a reasoned, well-informed debate but we are not assisted by the paucity of reliable statistics. Population movements are measured by the Office for National Statistics on the basis of the International Passenger Survey which samples only 2% of all passenger movements and, in the case of arrivals, include British residents like you and I returning from holiday overseas. Anyone coming into the UK for more than twelve months is deemed to be entering for permanent settlement and, likewise, anyone leaving for more than twelve months is deemed to be emigrating. Yet some 350,000 students and their dependants enter the UK every year, mostly for a course of more than one year and are not entitled to settle with that status however long they remain in the UK. Even the annual Home Office Control of Immigration Statistics carry a health warning. A new database “will enable in time the generation of high quality information, but in the meantime there remain some data quality issues which have affected some of the statistics in this publication.” 

We must exercise the same caution about figures for emigration – although no rational debate about immigration can be held without taking into account those who leave to live elsewhere. Again, the assumption is that those who leave for more than twelve months are emigrating permanently. So it was that the number of people leaving the UK for 12 months or more reached a record high in 2006, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). An estimated 400,000 people emigrated that year, up from 359,000 in 2005. This was the highest estimate since ONS introduced the method to calculate Total International Migration (TIM) in 1991. Continuing the pattern of recent years, just over half of long-term emigrants (207,000) were British citizens. The majority of Britons went to one of five countries - Australia, New Zealand, France, Spain or the United States. The remainder of emigrants (194,000) were non-British citizens, who left the UK in 2006 having lived here for at least a year. Even looking at just the British citizens that is still some 4,000 leaving every week. I believe that this trend will continue, especially among the non-economically active older population as those on limited income find that it is cheaper to live comfortably in other countries where English is widely spoken. It would be an interesting commentary on the history of the UK if the amount of immigration to the UK from those countries which have the historic link of empire and Commonwealth begins to be matched by the emigration of UK citizens to those countries. It would further exemplify the global trend of migration.  

Although the latest migration statistics (for 2008, published on 14 September 2009) show that there has been a decrease from the previous year across the categories of migrants coming to the UK, nevertheless, in the ten years to 2007, total passenger arrivals have gone up from almost 80 million to 110 million a year – a rise of 38% whereas non-European Economic Area arrivals have risen from 11 million to some 13.5 million a year – a rise of just over 20%. 7 million of those are visitors.  

Moreover, it should be no surprise that the number of European Economic Area nationals has risen from 16 million to 24 million a year over the same ten year period:  a rise of 50%. So we should be clear from where the pressure is coming, especially since accession of the A8 Eastern European countries to the European Union (on 1 May 2004) from when it is estimated that almost 1 million have arrived from those eastern European countries. As we all know, there is little that the UK Government can do to prevent European Economic Area nationals exercising their rights of free movement other than imposing transitional requirements for them to register for work for five years from accession and exceptionally for a period thereafter.  

So let us examine the non-European Economic Area nationals – the 13.5 million. Who are they? For what purpose are they coming to the UK? More than half are coming as visitors for a maximum period of leave of six months. I mentioned the 350,000 students who are here also not permitted to settle. Another 340,000 are people returning after a temporary absence. The total number of work permit holders and dependants recorded as admitted to the UK in 2008 was 112,485, a decrease of 12 per cent over the previous year. Excluding dependants, the number of asylum applications received in 2008 was 25,930, 11 per cent more than in 2007 (23,430). Including dependants, the number of asylum applications was 31,315 in 2008, which is dramatically less than the more than 100,000 who came to the UK in 2002.  

Another way of making sense of the statistics is to look at then number of those who are granted permanent settlement in the UK. These rose by 19 per cent from 124,855 in 2007 to 148,740 in 2008. We can expect a significant increase over the next few years as people seek indefinite leave to remain before the Government’s new probationary citizenship proposals come into effect in 2011 which will enable the Government to exercise greater control over the grant of citizenship. Almost 70% of those grants of settlement were dependant-related, that is spouses and partners, parents and children of those already settled here. 61,000 of the 148,740 were settlement grants given to those who came originally as workers to the UK. Fewer than 4,000 were to recognised refugees. 125,000 are work permit holders and their dependants (dependants are about one third of the total of this category) who, currently, after five years on a work permit can apply for permanent settlement. Only 50,000 are admitted as a spouse or fiancée or granted settlement on arrival. I hope that this puts the matter into context. 

Are these numbers more than can be sustained by the UK? Do we need a cap on migration? What is the impact of social cohesion? There are several thousand people every week leaving the UK for permanent settlement abroad: will this maintain an equilibrium in overall numbers?  

There is one matter that greatly concerns the public, namely the inability to remove those who have overstayed or have not succeeded in establishing a legal right to remain. The Government recognises these concerns and since the time of Prime Minister Blair has set itself targets to remove each month more people than those who make unfounded asylum claims. Yet, the number removed (excluding those who are turned away at ports of entry) remain fewer than 20,000. 

This is holding hostages to fortune. There are often very good reasons why a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned: if they have no papers then a foreign government is unlikely to accept them as their citizens for purposes of repatriation. Some countries of origin are in a state of civil war or generally in turmoil and it is unsafe to remove people: controversially the UK Government is now returning migrants to Afghanistan and is planning to send back failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. Then there is the absolute prohibition under Art.3 of ECHR to return a person to face torture or in human or degrading treatment.  

If a person has been in the UK for a long time and settled here then the existing Immigration Rules allow someone who has been in the UK lawfully for at least ten years to apply for indefinite leave to remain here (a right of residence) and someone who has been here unlawfully for fourteen years. Only about one third of those who apply are successful. Often it is difficult for such persons to prove when they arrived in the UK. In addition, there may be considerations of preventing removal for reasons of Art.8 ECHR (although this is proportionate and not absolute) by establishing that a family life has been established in the UK and that to remove a member of that family would breach the right to a private and family life. 

In order to assess the impact on social cohesion we must first have an idea of what it means. In August 2001, Ted Cantle was appointed by the Home Secretary to Chair the Community Cohesion Review Team and to lead the review on the causes of the summer disturbances in a number of northern towns and cities. The Cantle Report was produced in December 2001 and made around 70 recommendations. The concept of community cohesion was subsequently adopted by the Government and Ted Cantle was asked to chair the Panel which advised Ministers on implementation. The report found that “Whilst the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas came as no surprise, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarisation of our towns and cities. The extent to which these physical divisions were compounded by so many other aspects of our daily lives, was very evident. Separate educational arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship, language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the basis of a series of parallel lives. These lives often do not seem to touch at any point, let alone overlap and promote any meaningful interchanges.” The phrase “parallel lives” was born. 

The concern is that ignorance breeds fear and that in turn engenders hatred which can find its extreme form in physical violence. This was recognised in the report: “There is little wonder that the ignorance about each others’ communities can easily grow into fear; especially where this is exploited by extremist groups determined to undermine community harmony and foster divisions.” 

So what is the answer? Is it the concept of the melting pot in which, ultimately, we all end up a light shade of brown, a polyglot collection of different cultures indistinguishable from each other? The UK has an enormous ability to assimilate different cultures and adopt them as its own – the restaurant trade being one obvious example while popular music with so much Afro-Caribbean and African influence is another. Dance, literature, architecture – the list is endless of how our own British way of life has been enhanced by outside influences. Our language is peppered with imported words from other languages as anyone living in a bungalow will know. Of course, rightly, any resident community will expect new arrivals to comply with the social norms and legal requirements of the host community. The British people do not take kindly to those who come here and then appear to want to subvert our constitution and way of life.  

Yet tolerance of religion, dress and custom is part of what makes the UK not only an attractive country but also is fundamental to our values. Freedom of speech means that, short of sedition, we should not complain when those who want to see change articulate that in vocal ways. The election of two British National Party MEPs may have much to do with a concern about migration but it is more about protest that the politicians are not listening – it is a reaction. That reaction, I believe, is not based on racist sentiment but on the velocity of change which disrupts communities. It is this which needs to be addressed.  

There has been a growing realisation that the impact of migration (and the UK Border Agency has recently set up an advisory body to look at such impact) is uneven throughout the UK. Some communities such as Slough, East Anglia and Lincolnshire have felt a disproportionate impact on local services, mainly from those coming from eastern Europe often with limited English, some teachers reporting that they have seen the proportion of children in their schools who do not have English as their first language rise from 20% to 80%. Other parts of the UK, especially Scotland, are experiencing depopulation and are desperately wanting new immigrants to boost the local economy and become the new Council Tax payers – it was these factors which contributed to Glasgow becoming a major dispersal area for asylum seekers. 

The local authorities complain that the basis on which central Government financial support is determined from out-of-date census figures means that they are under-resourced. Hence the Government setting up the Migration Impacts Fund to be able to respond more directly and promptly. As the Department for Communities & Local Government’s website proclaims “Reducing inequalities and building community cohesion helps to create thriving, vibrant and sustainable communities where people want to live. We support local service providers in the following ways:

                     Understanding the change that is taking place in our communities - planning for the future, anticipating shifts in migration patterns and helping local authorities prepare for them

                     Helping public services respond to demographic changes through funding, such as additional resources for schools with rapid growth in pupil numbers, and a fund to help manage the transitional impacts of migration, raised by requiring some migrants to make a contribution

                     Supporting community cohesion - helping new migrants understand local customs and make a positive contribution to local life, and breaking down the misconceptions that can cause anxiety in a settled community

                     Stakeholder engagement - communication is crucial to sharing local best practice.”

The Fund is only £70 million and is provided by a levy on migrants. Its expressed purpose is to “be used to tackle illegal working practices and reduce local pressure on public services.” It is arguably too little too late but we should not be critical of a move in the right direction. We must be vigilant to ensure that the resources are deployed in the most effective ways. Expensive raids on restaurants and take-aways sometimes yielding no illegal migrants is not one of them. Creating a fear of civil penalties among small employers will only exacerbate potential racial discrimination. The approach needs to be much more subtle with a spirit of assistance to employers who, like the Attorney-General, can find the checks onerous and ambiguous.

 Clearly, in view of this disparity of impact there needs to be greater burden sharing among local authorities. I was speaking with the Cabinet member for housing for Westminster City Council which has considerable housing demand from new migrants for whom the law gives the Council responsibility. I see no reason why suitable accommodation with incentives to move there should not be available outside the areas of the local authorities which currently bear the greatest burden. This is something that must be pursued by the Local Government Association. It needs a willingness to participate by all. The dispersal of asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service since 2000 has been, arguably, the greatest experiment in geographical social engineering since Herbert Morrison allegedly (but almost certainly was misquoted as stating) vowed to build the Tories out of London. Many of those communities have remained where they were dispersed and have become part of the local community. Others, if less welcomed or not given firm roots, have drifted back to where others of their own community are situated. It is human nature for communities to find comfort in their own language and culture among their own and we should not denigrate this by referring to it as a problem of ghettoisation. We can see from certain communities, however, such as the Bangladeshis, that what tends to break this down is affluence as people move out from their own communities into the wider one. As I shall indicate, poverty among both the resident and migrant populations is a main driver for tension and a laager mentality. 

It is also recognised, partly as a result, that integration is best achieved at the local level rather than trying to socially engineer it at a macro national level.  This is where the ignorance can be dispelled through mechanisms designed to enable different communities to reach out to one another and then for good practice which achieves community cohesion to be shared as a possible model for other parts of the country. There is a need for experimentation and innovation, not the imposition of uniformity. 

What are the common values and common characteristics around which we can unite while still enjoying diversity or, as Peter Ustinov used to put it to me as a characteristic of federalism, “to enjoy each others differences”? The search for so-called Britishness can be sterile, not least because the nature of it is changing constantly. Cohesion is not assisted by the Prime Minister adopting, however inadvertently, a BNP slogan of “British jobs for British workers” because, apart from its chauvinistic implications, it begs the question of who are British workers. We need to find that which unites us rather than that which divides us. In a multi-religious society it is encouraging that these characteristics are secular values even if they may have their origin in Judaeo-Christian thought. Human rights, tolerance, freedom of speech and conscience, democracy, rights and responsibilities would find resonance with many. There is the tension between individualism and collectivism. We now all can acknowledge that there is such a thing as “society” but that does not answer how we manage individuals within it. One person’s freedom is another’s tyranny just as in the world one person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist. This tension is not as difficult to reconcile as may first seem apparent. The cult of uncurtailed individualism (to quote the awful current advertisements which announce “because I’m worth it”) is unacceptable without accountability to those around us. We should ask more what we can do for the society in which we live rather than what it can do for us. Likewise, we should render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and unto God that which belongs to God – freedom of religious worship is fundamentally an individual issue.  

We can identify what divides society. What exacerbates division is dispossession and poverty whether among the new or existing community. Where that affects one particular community more than another it becomes a token for identifying the problem with that community rather than recognising it as a general social evil. The poor will always be with us and we need to combat poverty. Benjamin Disraeli identified his two nations as the rich and the poor. We need also to recognise that in a globalised world different countries are at different stages of civilisation in terms of historical and as well as economic development. 

The findings of a new report commissioned by the Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society entitled “Civil society associations and the values of social justice” by Professor Gary Craig, an event on 5 May as part of the Carnegie UK Trust’s Inquiry into the Future of Civil Society in the UK and Ireland showed that in Defining social justice civil society associations (CSAs) most commonly referred to the concepts of “fairness” and “equality” as the key components of their social justice definition; although it was clear that respondents had different ideas about what fairness and equality mean. In relation to fairness, respondents focused on the distribution of resources and fairness in the way society treats people. The concept of equality was referred to almost as much as fairness and often in conjunction with it. Most common were references to equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. 

“First, the lowest-skilled workers face strong barriers to labour market success, and whether or not immigration is to blame, it is widely perceived to be a contributing factor. Continued interventions to help these workers to compete are essential. Second, integration policies can help to prevent immigrants from becoming concentrated in low-skill jobs (potentially a result of their non-substitutability with natives), as well as to improve public confidence in the immigration system. Third, efforts to increase employer-provided training can play a role in ensuring that immigration does not reduce employers’ incentives to train and promote native workers.”  

Let me conclude. I have tried to set the current debate about migration and integration within the context of both the global dimension and history. The question of migration essentially is one of degree. The television series about the ancestry of celebrities has done a service by exemplifying what a mixed lot we British are. We are all migrants – it is just a question of when our first ancestor here arrived, whether with the early invasions from what is now Belgium and Germany, the Norman French, the Huguenots or later.  

Those who are opposed to immigration hearken back to a supposed age when only the indigenous population existed but it never happened. They have the impossible task of defining a migrant. When does an immigrant cease to be one and become part of the established community: one, two, three generations or is it more about when an individual can be said to be integrated and mutually at ease with the community? For the closet racist the colour of skin will always define a migrant however long the person or family have been here. If we discount this crude and offensive measure then with what are we left? The only safe definition is a legal one: those who have a legal status to remain whether for temporary or permanent purposes. To them the law should apply equally and they should enjoy the same dignity as anyone entitled to live on British soil. 

When setting out on a journey we should always look back to see how far we have come as the path just travelled may help us deal with the hurdles ahead. I hope that what I have done is to show that there is no reason to be pessimistic about these trends and global migration, that societies can absorb migrants and benefit from them and that so long as there is goodwill and understanding we can all accept the inevitable and ensure that it enriches society as a whole.