The Distribution of the Overseas-Born Population of the British Isles

Abstract

STATISTICS on the overseas-born population of the British Isles are both meagre and inadequate, despite the need at all levels of administration for reliable and comprehensive data for policymaking in the social, economic and political fields. The most obvious deficiency, though not the most important, is the variability in the data given in the General and County Reports of the 1961 Censuses. Thus there is insufficient material to enable one to discern the spatial pattern of the overseas-born population within the administrative counties of Ireland (Fig. 12). The Census of England and Wales and the Census of Scotland, on the other hand, record the number of males and females born outside the British Isles residing in each administrative area down to the level of the Rural District in England and Wales and the County District in Scotland. Even so, the most detailed information relates only to those administrative areas of Great Britain which contain no fewer than 2000 persons born outside the British Isles (Fig. 13). There are more fundamental limitations. First, no census authority in the British Isles records information on the pigmentation and social composition of its population. Consequently it is not known, for instance, how many indigenous West Indians, Indians or Pakistanis were resident in the British Isles at the time of the 1961 Censuses. It would be incorrect to assume that the 188,172 persons then recorded as being born in India and Pakistan, but resident in England and Wales, were Indians and Pakistanis. In fact, Table 2 of the Birthplace and Nationality Tables (Census, 1961, England and Wales) reveals that no fewer than 81,748 of these persons were citizens of the United Kingdom and its Colonies 'by birth and descent'. By using such additional evidence on nationality, it would be possible to gain a more realistic picture of the spatial distribution of Indians and Pakistanis. Unfortunately, this particular evidence is available only for England and Wales together, though the aggregate of persons born in specified countries who were citizens of the United Kingdom and its Colonies (whether by 'birth or descent, by registration or marriage, by naturalization or by a mode of acquisition not stated') is given for the Standard Regions. Even if such information were available for Counties, County and Metropolitan Boroughs and other administrative areas lower down in the hierarchy, the use of nationality as a criterion for the definition of categories of persons born overseas would create formidable problems of interpreting the precise meaning of citizenship and complex constitutional relationships. For example, there were Ioo,05I Jamaican-born persons resident in England and Wales in 1961. Of these, 88,896 were classified as citizens of the United Kingdom and its Colonies, a further II,o2I failed to state their nationality on their returns, 52 were citizens of Commonwealth Countries and the Irish Republic, and only 82 were classified as aliens. In fact, there is little or no evidence in the 1961 Census to indicate how many of the immigrants were indigenous West Indians and how many were the offspring of Britishborn parents. Similarly, the composition of the immigrant population from India and Pakistan