England and Wales population up

Spectators under umbrellas

We learn today that there are almost half a million more people living in England and Wales than official estimates had suggested. We are pretty good at counting babies and corpses, so we must have been under-counting net migration during the past decade.

It is not a wild underestimate - less than 1% of the total population. But the 480,000 individuals of whom the authorities were unaware will fuel arguments about immigration and how we best deal with an ageing population.

Three groups have expanded significantly during the past decade:

  • the number of people in their 90s has now reached 430,000
  • there are a million more 20-somethings
  • the number of under-fives is up 400,000.

Quite a few local authorities will be poring over the figures to see whether they might be able to argue for a bit more cash from the Treasury to deal with the impact of higher numbers.


PDF download Office for National Statistics: Census 2011[460 KB]

Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

But the new data will also prompt fierce argument about the overall population level of our islands, as the Office for National Statistics confirms it will revise its population projections in the autumn.

As things stand, the ONS has suggested the UK population will be almost 72 million in 20 years time and 81 million by 2060.

Is the number too high? What is the optimum population for the UK and how would we achieve it?

The pressure group MigrationWatch UK has argued that the government should take whatever steps necessary to ensure numbers stays well below 70 million people. An online petition to that effect has achieved the 100,000 signatures necessary to trigger a Commons debate on the idea.

The petition warns that reaching the 70 million mark within 20 years "will have a huge impact both on our quality of life and on our public services".

Head count

  • UK population currently stands at about 62.6 million
  • ONS projects this will reach 72 million in 2032 and 81 million by 2060

The Optimum Population Trust goes further with proposals that government encourage couples to stop at two children and the introduction of a one-in one-out policy on immigration. "That way our numbers can be allowed to stabilise and reduce gradually to a lower, environmentally sustainable level," the organisation says.

But while there are many who would agree we live on a crowded isle, population control comes at a cost - social and economic.

Only last week the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) pointed out that restricting inward migration would mean either even bigger cuts to public services or hefty tax rises to pay for an ageing population.

In its annual report to ministers, it said in the medium term "higher inward migration would tend to increase tax receipts and not add much to age-related spending pressures, even whilst allowing for an increase in GDP from extra employment".

Spending on health, pensions and care costs are set to soar over the next half century and, if the government is committed to ensuring public debt does not exceed 40% of GDP, the squeeze on the working population becomes ever greater.

Assuming a net migration rate of 140,000 a year (still significantly higher than government target of under 100,000 and significantly lower than the current rate of 260,000), the OBR calculates that the additional cost of the elderly would require further spending cuts and tax rises worth £17bn.

Were the UK to maintain its current net migration level, the annual growth rate would increase form 2.4% to 2.7% and the fiscal consolidation required to bring national debt to 40% of GDP would be three times smaller at £4.6bn. (These estimates, of course, were made before Monday's census data was published.)

This graph from the OBR report demonstrates how the deficit is affected by different assumptions. The line marked old age structure assumes net migration of 140,000 but with higher life expectancy and lower fertility. Young age structure combines high migration with lower life expectancy and higher fertility.

Public sector net debt for demographic variants

A high migration policy has a sting it in its tail, of course. Assuming that many of those migrants stay in Britain beyond their working life, it will result in another population bulge hitting retirement in 40 to 50 years time.

Pregnant woman talking to a nurse Women in Britain are having more babies

As the OBR says, "higher migration could be seen as delaying some of the fiscal challenges of an ageing population rather than a way of avoiding them".

Nevertheless, on the OBR analysis, one can see that policies restricting inward migration of young workers to reduce the population will, in the medium term at least, put far greater pressure on British workers to support the elderly. Immigration will look a lot more attractive if it means fewer cuts and lower taxes.

Equally, the idea that politicians should advise couples how many children they should have would be deeply controversial in Britain. Decisions on childbearing have been seen as a matter for families, not government ministers. In any event, as can be seen from the OBR analysis, there are arguments for and against the UK reducing its fertility rate.

The ONS has been trying to understand what has been driving the big rise in the number of under-fives revealed by the census. As I reported last June, there has been a sudden and unexplained rise in the fertility rate over the past few years.

Although the increase in the number of women of childbearing age is mainly due to migration over the past decade, they still represent only a small proportion of the total and cannot explain the significant rise in total fertility rate.

Britain is living longer, seeing more foreigners arriving and having more babies too. Those three facts are pushing up our population and posing profound questions about the best way forward.


"No credible evidence has yet been published to show why a UK population of 70 million is preferable to a population limit of 50, 60 or 80million - or any other number," says the Migration Observatory think-tank based at Oxford University.

"We cannot base major policy decisions on a finger-in-the-air decision to aim for one round number or another. Policy needs to be based on evidence. At this stage there simply isn't enough to even debate what is at stake."

Mark Easton Article written by Mark Easton Mark Easton Home editor

Don't have nightmares - crime is down

Recorded crime is an unsatisfactory measure of crime trends - and improving recording practices will not change this.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 155.

    I am good at remembering important numbers. In April 1973 the UK population peaked and was static at 53m and would then start to go down. Net migration and large immigrant births (now the majority) changed all this.

    I introduced the term "net migration" to the BBC and also pointed out that British emmigrants were "economic migrants".

    The UK pop in 2001 was 61m.

  • rate this

    Comment number 154.


    I see, well silly me, I would rather think that the fact that it is Majority Pakistani sort of irrelevant , If that's the way the country is going so be it. However more disturbing is this disgraceful and I think dangerous idea that shhh we should not Verbalise it ! the Racist Tag has been use so much, nobody takes it seriously anymore.. Immigration can be verbalised its no crime Yet

  • rate this

    Comment number 153.

    I have very little faith in the numbers coming out of the census.

    From my experience filling in forms is not a favoured pastime in many inner cities.

    In north London huge numbers of people don’t bother with car insurance, rent or appearing at court so why would they bother filling in a census?

  • rate this

    Comment number 152.

    145 & 149 - Yes, numbers are the issue. But racism is subtle & deep-seated: I know how most people will (truly) answer my previous question. Read about aversive racism. The problem is that verbalising complaints about Eastern Europeans and towns being majority Pakistani (read the previous posts) enables people to label counter-immigration arguments as overtly racist and then dismiss them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 151.


    I agree its matters not 1 jot about a persons colour. However mass immigration will bring about some very tricky questions and problems which the so called elites shy away from., large numbers of some immigrants find the U.K. a unacceptable place to be, and totally out of line with their cultural norms and beliefs and demand the country and the population changes to accomadate them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 150.

    #147. BobRocket.

    Yes Bob, if the replacement rate falls we will all, eventually, die out. Good maths.

    But with 70 million of us, and at 1.6 per 2, how long will it take? Generations? And is there not a slight chance, miniscule even, that at some point we might realise what we are doing and reverse it?

    And how long if we keep topping up with 'imports'?


  • rate this

    Comment number 149.

    I am amazed why so called Liberal intellectuals think this is a racist issue.

    a) The complaint is always about numbers, not colours.
    b) The majority of people don't want mass immigration. Therefore, it is their democratic right not to have it.

    But rather than listen, they just call opponents fascists and carry on with their illiberal, self-serving & undemocratic actions.

    Truly bizarre.

  • rate this

    Comment number 148.

    Perhaps now some of our parliamentary candidates will start to take this issue seriously. We're supposed to be finding ways to reduce public spending. Guess what - we'd save lots if we stopped paying people to breed, stopped financing new housing (especially since there are thousands of empty homes and other buildings in every county) and stopped building or enlarging schools and hospitals.

  • rate this

    Comment number 147.

    #145 Leodisthefirst

    'it is about numbers'

    Just after WWII the fertility rate in the UK hit 2.4 (increasing population), since then it has been falling, the indigenous rate in the west is around 1.6

    It doesn't matter how many people you import, if the population doesn't breed at replacement rate eventually they will all die out.

    It's the numbers, Duh!

  • rate this

    Comment number 146.


    As a former professional user of the census. I can confirm that you are dead right.

    What is less well known is that the 1991 Census i also very suspect with probably at least 1 Million households uncounted. These were British households who "disappeared" off the record eg electoral etc as a protest against the Poll Tax.

  • rate this

    Comment number 145.

    @140 David.

    David, it has nothing to do with racism - that is a stick to beat debate on the head with - it is about numbers.

    The UK might be able to support many more people than it currently does, but the situation is not sustainable, not even in the medium term. It matters not one jot where the poeple come from, the numbers will eventually exceed the ability of the resources to support them.

  • rate this

    Comment number 144.


    You are racist

    Sadly there seems to have been some kind of brainwashing, self-loathing to the point of blindness on this issues which unfortunately so blinkered some people that everything is racist.
    Its a shame because it has no logic. and tends to draws out nonsense's P.C. diatribe you can see this because how many of them could also be of black brown coloured origin


  • rate this

    Comment number 143.

    Too long has the government encouraged teenagers to create babies as a form of income rather than the Education-Career based income thus leaving the previous low paid work to the immigrants with their families. Also with the exodus of the young intellectual (As we live longer harder to progress with less retirements) causing more immigration to fill these places

  • rate this

    Comment number 142.

    Are these massive increases from census 2001 to census 2011? If people can remember back that far in 2001 there was a lot of talk about avoiding the government identity card scheme by not completing the census. I know a family of 4 who didn't. How many more have now 'reappeared'?

  • rate this

    Comment number 141.

    @ 140 David, I don't in anyway count myself amongst the 'close the doors' brigade, but what you say is a little unfair. It is perfectly possible to favour immigration from the countries you mention without being racist. The reason is that culturally these countries are very similar to our own and thus their citizens will be much more likely to hold dear the same liberties and values we do.

  • rate this

    Comment number 140.

    To all the 'close the doors' brigade: answer this question to yourselves, honestly. Do you have a 'problem' with the million or so Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and Western Europeans living in the UK? If the answer is no then you are racist.

    Dress it up with economics (the Nazis did that) or land pressure (Hutus did that in Rwanda), but I'm afraid that doesn't alter facts.

  • rate this

    Comment number 139.

    #137 englishvote

    The elephant is ageing population.


    note how almost half the population was under 20 in 1901 and less than a quarter is now.

    The postwar baby boomers are rapidly becoming geriatric boomers, in 40 years they will all be gone. If it hadn't been for successive waves of immigration we would already be seeing the effects of population crash.

  • rate this

    Comment number 138.

    Mark easton comments:
    “Interesting England is NOT most densely populated EU country...Malta 1305/km2, Ned 493/km2, Eng 407/km2”

    Figures I can find are, England 407 km2, Netherlands 404 km2, Scotland empty

    Why no migration to Scotland?

  • rate this

    Comment number 137.

    Strange how quiet the Green environmental movement is on population increase in Britain.

    They love to campaign on sustainability and protest about new airports and the dangers of consumerism.

    But silence on population. Apparently their agenda does not include talking about the elephant in the room.

  • rate this

    Comment number 136.

    To be honest if there is a reason why I may emigrate it's not because I feel particularly crowded here, but because of the alarming enthusiasm some of my fellow Britons have for planning my family for me. I used to think the term 'econazi' was hyperbole, but now it's beginning to look startlingly appropriate.


Page 1 of 8



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.