Irregular migrants and the UK’s official dataset

IRREGULAR MIGRANTS AND THE UK’S OFFICIAL DATASETS

BY Marian Mackintosh ‐ June 2009

Introduction

To what extent are irregular migrants included in the UK’s official datasets – from the Census and Annual Population Survey, to health service or National Insurance records? Very little research has been undertaken which could quantify the answer to this question, and by its very nature such research is difficult to undertake. However, the need to address the question is urgent because exclusion of any population group from these datasets distorts the data used to plan services for local populations, as well as affecting the distribution of resources which are allocated on a per capita basis.

On best available estimates irregular migrants now make up more than one per cent of UK population overall, with a considerably higher percentage for London and some other areas.1 If they are not as fully represented in official data as other UK residents, we could be getting a distorted picture of: • population size at local, regional and national level • population characteristics ‐ from age or gender to health, housing conditions, and employment ‐ with particular problems in measuring these variables for our migrant communities • how population size and characteristics vary across the UK.

Implications for public policy might then be far‐ reaching. Even though migrants without regular status are generally excluded from public services, their absence from official data could ‐ especially in areas where they are concentrated ‐ compromise longer‐term planning of a range of services from urban development to health services or future provision of school places. It could also distort analysis of what lies behind challenges like poverty and worklessness, community safety and overcrowding in housing.

Equally important, it could affect both the overall level and distribution of goverment finance to public authorities, where funding systems make use of per capita allocation. The potential effect can be illustrated by the system for distributing funds to local councils, based on official population estimates. For each 10,000 irregular migrants who were missing from these estimates (even after adjustments for underenumeration), around £5.5 million would be lost by English local authorities in formula grant alone, assuming 2009/2010 settlement levels2.

The answer to our question, whether irregular migrants are fully included in official data, is therefore an important factor in weighing up the case for their regularisation. If the coverage and reliability of datasets are compromised by their current status, regularising this population group could ultimately mean that more

1

accurate data on demographic change and socio‐economic characteristics of the population are available for all users.

use by many community groups and others for equalities work assessing differentials in data between migrant and other communities and to support their cases to secure funding for their work. Inclusion of irregular migrants in this data set would provide the very wide range of users with more accurate local population information.

Irregular migrants are a varied group of people.

Some have characteristics which would usually increase people’s chances of being counted in official data, such as being highly qualified or having a settled address. But overall they do have the features of a hard‐to‐count population: often moving frequently, with a low take‐up of services, in shared housing and with low‐level, illegal or non‐existent employment.

Crucially, the common denominator uniting all types of irregular migrants is that they may face sanctions or removal from the country if the Government identifies and locates them. The risk is obvious, that this will lead many to avoid being recorded in official data sets.

Some irregular migrants will have been recorded in 2001 UK Census data and some will not, but there is no information available to quantify the two elements.

There are three stages where irregular migrants may have been recorded in the Census. Firstly, some irregular migrants may have returned completed Census forms. The 2001 Census form was obligatory for all. It stated that it should be completed by ‘all people’, and that the form was ‘compulsory’ and that refusal to complete it could result in a fine. Forms were posted to households and then a large team of enumerators followed up households a number of times when forms were not returned3.

The data sets discussed here all include different measures of population, and the discussion focuses on whether they are likely to include irregular migrants or not.

Secondly, enumerators were encouraged to identify the number of people at an address if they were provided with any information by occupants or neighbours. In some cases they will have gathered data on Census forms which, albeit incomplete, at least gave resident numbers. One inner city enumerator described coming across a group of over a hundred mostly young males sleeping in a shop which had closed down. This group were recorded on a Census form and the enumerator said that the people she attempted to speak to did not seem to speak English as a first language, suggesting that at least some were migrants.

Home Office Only the Home Office holds extensive information about individuals and their immigration status, but because the Home Office does not have complete information about who has left the UK, and does not have figures on people entering the country illegally, it is only able to make estimates of the total number of irregular migrants, and very rarely does that.

Census The Census is an extremely important data source in the UK with its extensive coverage and wealth of demographic, social and economic data. It is used widely, including the

Thirdly Census data were adjusted for undereumeration. In some areas, mainly inner 2

city areas, non‐response from the population as a whole was relatively high and large adjustments were made. These areas are likely to coincide with the areas where many irregular migrants live, as these are also areas where international migrants are concentrated. One method used to adjust for under‐enumeration compared recorded Census data with other standard sources of information such as births data and National Insurance records. Some of these other sources may have only a weak and uncertain relationship with irregular migrants, but probably included at least some of them.

Since we have no consistent information on the location of irregular migrants, however, adjustments for underenumeration are unlikely to have accounted for this group accurately across all areas. However, it is also important to note that it is possible that the adjustments could have over‐estimated some local populations and therefore fully included any irregular migrants living there.

on the Census but updated with data on births, deaths and migration. As well as the initial work undertaken to address under‐ enumeration in the Census, further work was done, following the publication of Census data, to upgrade the mid‐year estimates based upon more demographic analysis. This resulted in some 180,000 additional young males being added in to the population estimates, about 120,000 of them in London. The 180,000 were allocated to areas on a number of criteria, including higher percentages of foreign‐born people. This upgrade was on top of exercises to uplift the estimates in Westminster, Southwark and Wandsworth and a small number of other districts due to faulty Census enumeration.

Because it adjusted for people missed by the Census, it is likely to have taken account of more irregular migrants ‐ but it is impossible to say how many. Again, as with the Census itself, it is also possible that ONS mid‐year estimates have over‐estimated some district or local authority populations.

Although the Census is obligatory there is no doubt that many irregular migrants will not have been recorded. Even if willing, these people are often difficult to contact, partly because some may well believe they ought not to be included, and partly because many are likely to want to avoid the official contact.

Again, this is not just a matter of numbers. If (as seems likely) irregular status is associated with key policy variables like poverty, poor housing and incidence of ill‐health, and many such residents are missing from the Census, work relying on its data to develop policy in these fields is at risk of statistical bias.

Labour Force Survey (LFS) The LFS, a voluntary survey, is combined with a boosted sample to produce the Annual Population Survey (APS) which is a main data source between Censuses for labour market information; for estimates of population and also numbers of migrants; and for much policy analysis on issues like poverty and worklessness. The LFS/APS is thought to underestimate numbers of migrants in general4 and of course we have noted the additional issues for irregular migrants. A recent study by the GLA4 said “The other limitation of APS data is the possibility of sample bias. Response rates on the APS, in common with most social surveys, have been falling in recent years.

Further, response rates on the APS are lower in

Mid‐year estimates As well as a Census every ten years, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces annual mid‐year population estimates which are based

3

London than outside London. For example, the response rate for wave 1 of the quarterly Labour Force Survey (a key component of the APS) during April‐June 2006 was 61.6% in London and 72.3% in the rest of England. So the extent to which the final survey sample is representative of the resident population generally is unknown. It is possible, and indeed likely, that certain groups are more likely to be missed than others. These might include groups such as Londoners whose first language is not English, recent arrivals, or those in multi occupancy accommodation. The extent of sample bias is not known, but the lower response rate means that it is more likely in London.”

The two main types of NHS data are GP records and hospital records. Since 2004, irregular migrants have been eligible only for a very limited range of NHS services: emergency hospital care, family planning, sexual health services and treatment for a few notifiable diseases such as tuberculosis.5 (For HIV, testing has been available but not treatment unless they began it before becoming irregular.)

Access to primary care for this group of migrants is at the discretion of GPs, and has been difficult to obtain in many areas.

Therefore irregular migrants will be included to a limited extent in hospital statistics but only for some services, and in GP records but not for all practices. On the other hand there is a possibility that irregular migrants may be over‐ represented in accident and emergency records, if exclusion from local GP services drives them to present instead at A&E.6

Besides problems arising from response rates, the APS’s own sampling rules may limit its ability to reflect the presence of irregular migrants. It does not sample most types of communal establishments such as hostels, boarding households or mobile home sites, where some irregular migrants might be expected to live. Also it only includes people who consider their present address to be their main residence, and they must have lived there for six months or more. Both criteria may tend to reduce migrants’ representation in the survey, especially if they lack regular status.

International Passenger Survey (IPS) The International Passenger Survey (IPS) is the prime source of migration data for Great Britain, and feeds into the official population estimates. Around 250,000 interviews are carried out each year representing 0.2 per cent of all travellers as they enter or leave the UK. It is a voluntary survey conducted at all principal air and sea ports, including the channel tunnel.

Data collected includes: country of visit (for UK residents), country of residence and region of the UK visited (for overseas residents), expenditure, purpose of visit, length of stay, age group, gender, mode of transport, port, year, and quarter of visit. The definition of a migrant in this survey is someone who intends to enter or leave the UK for a year or more. Therefore the survey excludes short‐term migrants.

Another limitation on the LFS/APS in this area is that, to get from survey information to estimated total numbers of people in each of its categories, its survey figures have to be ‘grossed up’ using overall population estimates produced by ONS (see above). But these standard ONS estimates specifically exclude short‐term migrants.

National Health Service (NHS)

The resultant figures are grossed up by weighting factors dependant on route and time

4

of year. The figures produced are therefore estimates and have a high degree of uncertainty. Given that it seems that the majority of irregular migrants enter the country legally, the IPS should in theory include them.

It is clear that regularisation would remove some obstacles to inclusion in these datasets – not only fear of discovery and possible removal from the UK, but also disengagement from systems through which people get ‘counted’ such as GP registration, state benefits and mainstream employer surveys. If irregular migrants were regularised and this did lead to more being included in official datasets, it would contribute to a better enumerated population, with a more accurate reflection of the actual characteristics of this group of people, such as their country of birth, and their circumstances such as housing and (un)employment . However, some regularised migrants would still be classified as difficult to count because they would retain characteristics outlined earlier, at least for a while, and some problems would still arise in the attempt to include them in official data sets.

There are many other major sources of data used for social and economic analysis, such as DWP benefits data, household surveys, employment‐related surveys, and Inland Revenue data. Many will largely omit irregular migrants – for instance because these migrants have no entitlement (eg. benefits); because the datasets rely on information sources that are less likely to include them (such as mainstream employers in the regulated economy, or Inland Revenue); or because they might just want to avoid the survey. Once again, policy shaped by analysis of such datasets will inevitably be biased to some extent away from the needs of communities that include a high proportion of irregular migrants.

This analysis shows that the position of irregular migrants within different data sets is complex.

It also highlights the serious potential consequences of possible underenumeration, from possible misallocation of state funding to hampering society’s ability to measure true difference within its population, and plan services accordingly. It suggests that, at the least, it is time to investigate the relationship between the immigration system and the quality of data which underpin much UK public policy.

Conclusion While irregular migrants may well be included in all these datasets to some extent, the characteristics of this hard‐to‐count population and their likely reluctance to be recorded by UK official agencies make it probable that many are missing. Adjustments for under‐enumeration in some data sets are highly unlikely to have accounted for them completely.

If irregular migrants are being omitted by these datasets on a substantial scale, the potential impact on policy and use resources could be all the greater for the geographical areas and population groups (age, gender, ethnicity, occupational level and so on) where such migrants are concentrated.

Sources 1

Migrants Rights Network and MigrationWork (2009), Irregular Migrants: the urgent need for a new approach, (http://www.migrantrights.org.uk or http://www.migrationwork.org)

5

2

Based on a calculation of a per capita grant of £549 for formula grant for 2009/2010 calculated from the weblink http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0910/h ead0910.xls

3 ONS (2004) Census 2001 Definitions. Office for National Statistics, GRO Scotland, NIRA. The Stationery Office. London.

4 Spence, L (2008) A profile of Londoners by country of birth. Estimates from the 2006 Annual Population Survey. GLA DMAG Briefing 2008‐05.

5 Gould, M (2008) Médecins Sans Frontières?

Health Service Journal. 17 March 2008.

6 Hargreaves, S et al. (2006) Impact on and use of health services by international migrants: questionnaire survey of inner city London A&E attenders BMC Health Services Research 2006; 6: 153.

6