Migration Watch UK: News

BBC Newsnight Poll - Romanian and Bulgarian migration

This is a stunning survey, which the BBC has rather desperately tried to play down. The percentages look small but when multiplied by the size of the work force they produce large numbers. One percent of Romanians of working age (total 15.4 million) actively considering work in the UK amounts to 150,000 and four percent of working age Bulgarians (total 4.9 million) is another 200,000. Even if one takes only those making concrete plans, the number of Romanians is 61,000 and the number of Bulgarians 58,000 or nearly 120,000 in total.  Not all will come of course and polls of intentions are notoriously difficult but others may well come once their friends are installed. 

Commenting on the poll, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK said:

“These figures suggest that the Migration Watch central estimate of 50,000 a year is distinctly cautious. Numbers suggested on the scale by this survey would make it impossible for the Government to sustain their target of tens of thousands, assuming they reach it by the end of the parliament.”

Please visit our website at www.migrationwatchuk.org

Follow us on Twitter @migrationwatchuk.org

18 Bogus Arguments for Mass Immigration

11 April, 2013

Immigration Mythology Briefing Paper 12.4 has been updated. The updated paper outlines the many myths that are put forward by the mass immigration lobby in support of the current levels of immigration and dispels each myth in turn.

The Prime Minister's Speech - The Public's View

A recent YouGov survey which received remarkably little media attention has shown striking public support for the Prime Minister's proposals outlined in his speech last week. (See here for the PM's speech)

The key findings in a survey conducted on 25-26 March 2013 were:

70% of respondents supported the policy of only allowing European migrants to claim jobseekers allowance for more than six months if they have a "reasonable prospect" of finding work, including 72% of Liberal Democrat voters.

78% supported a policy which would see the government doing more to charge foreign governments for the cost of treating overseas patients, including 76% of Liberal Democrat voters. 

81% of respondents would support a policy which disallowed migrants from joining the council house waiting list until they have lived in Britain for two years, including 73% of Liberal Democrat voters.

86% of respondents support a policy of increased fines for companies that employ illegal immigrants, including 83% of Liberal Democrat voters.

The survey can be found here. 

The contribution of A8 migrants to the UK public finances – some further comment

In an article for the Guardian Online on 6 March, Jonathan Portes made three claims which we believe are open to question [1]:

1. A8 migrants are “far less likely to live in social housing”

The study [2] upon which this claim is based only covered the first four years of A8 migration to the UK and compared this inflow of mainly young and mainly single new arrivals with the entire British population.  Obviously A8 migrants would be less likely to qualify for social housing.

2. A8 migrants are “far less likely to claim benefits and tax credits”

This is based on a study [3] by the Department for Work and Pensions but it omits benefits such as housing benefit and Council tax benefit paid by local authorities.  In any case the young and single are less likely to claim.

3. A8 migrants “paid in via taxes about 30% more than they cost our public services”

The paper on which this claim relies is only a snapshot of the situation in 2009 and it only looks backwards, taking no account of future costs of health, education and pensions. It explicitly states that "any predictions of future contributions and receipts must rely on a set of very strong (sic) assumptions, and we do not wish to engage in such speculation"[4]

Comment.  The thrust of the article is that A8 migrants are young, healthy and have a high employment rate so are less likely to be a charge on the benefit system.   That is almost self evident if the focus is confined to the short term but the longer term implications are also important, both socially and economically.

A major and more recent study carried out in 2011 by the NIESR, a think tank now led by Jonathan Portes, found that the long term impact on GDP of A8 migration to the UK was expected to be ‘negligible’. [5]

[1]Jonathan Portes, A crisis over the UK’s benefits bill for EU migrants? What crisis?, Guardian Online, 6 March 2013. See here

[2] CReAM, ‘Assessing the Fiscal Costs and Benefits of A8 Migration to the UK’, CReAM Discussion Paper No 18/09, July 2009, p. 19. See here

[3] DWP, Nationality at point of national insurance number registration of DWP benefit claimants: February 2011 working age benefits, January 2012. See here

[4]CReAM, ‘Assessing the Fiscal Costs and Benefits of A8 Migration to the UK’, CReAM Discussion Paper No 18/09, July 2009, p. 19. 

[5] NIESR, ‘Labour Mobility within the EU – The Impact of Enlargement and the functioning of the transitional arrangements’, NIESR Discussion Paper No 379, April 2011, p. 2. See here   

[6] House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, 1^st Report of Session 2007-08, The Economic Impact of Immigration, Volume I: Report, April 2008 page 41. See here

The Prime Minister's Immigration Speech

Commenting on David Cameron's speech on immigration this afternoon, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: 

"It is surely only fair that everybody should contribute to the welfare system before they can draw benefits. The devil is often in the detail but this speech sets out a broad  agenda for tightening access to the welfare state and it is the right one."

Briefing Note on Social Housing and Immigration

Demand exceeds supply

1  The Prime Minister’s speech proposed that immigrants should wait 2-5 years before joining the waiting list which, in England, has grown dramatically in recent years from around a million in 2001 to two million today[1].  

Immigration Status and Eligibility

2  Currently EEA nationals who are habitually resident in the UK have to be treated exactly the same as British citizens in their application for social housing[2]. This in effect means that EEA nationals can join the social housing register from day one.

3  Nationals from outside the EU can join the social housing register if they have Indefinite Leave to Remain or have been granted refugee status.

4  Recent reforms in the localism act allow local authorities to house homeless people in the private rented sector and to give some priority to people with a local connection.  However, most local authorities with large waiting lists have ignored the option of favouring those with a local connection.

The impact of recent immigration

5  Nationally around 1 in 10 new lets goes to foreign nationals but there is huge local variation. For example it appears that nearly half of the lets in the London boroughs of Ealing and Haringey go to foreign nationals[3].  In Peterborough and Boston in the Fens over a quarter of new lets go to foreign nationals[4]. 

6  It is difficult to get a complete picture at the local level because the survey question on nationality is optional. This has allowed some local authorities to avoid answering it. In London less than half the local authority lets had nationality data against them[5]. 

Recommendations

7  We recommend that the nationality question be made compulsory and that there be a public inquiry into the allocation of social housing in recent years, particularly in London.                                                                   

---

[1] Local Authority Housing Statistics https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6910/2039199.pdf

[2] http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/289

[3] Paragraph 22 http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/286

[4] Continuous Recording of Lettings and Sales https://core.communities.gov.uk/ Advanced Analysis of General Needs new lets by local authority where previous tenure not social housing.

[5] http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/286

 

Economic Incentives for Romanians and Bulgarians will be twice those for Polish workers now in Britain

Even on the minimum wage, migrant workers from Romania and Bulgaria would be immensely better off if they were to move to the UK when our labour market is opened to them next year. That is the conclusion of a study issued today by Migrationwatch. 

The study found that, after allowing for differences in the cost of living;

• A single worker would be 4 or 5 times better off than at home;
• A worker with a spouse and 2 children would be 8 or 9 times better off;
• The same family would be 4 times better off than a family on the average wage at home;
• A single worker who saved 20% of his take home pay in Britain would be saving every week up to 2 weeks pay on the minimum wage at home. A family would save 2 or 3 weeks pay every week.

A comparison with the situation of Polish workers already in Britain today shows that the economic incentives for Romanian and Bulgarian workers will be twice as great.

In addition, child benefit for two children (even if they remain in their home countries) amounts to a week’s take home pay at the minimum wage in Romania and rather more in Bulgaria.

If the worker should lose his job in Britain unemployment pay here is equivalent to more than twice the take home pay at the minimum wage in Romania or Bulgaria.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch said “The wage differences turn out be simply stunning. The previous government made a huge mistake by agreeing to accession treaties that granted full access to our labour market to workers from countries that have only 1/5^th of our GDP per head. Given that the economic incentives for Romanian and Bulgarian workers are twice those now enjoyed by Polish workers, it would be absurd to suggest that there will not be a significant inflow”.

EU Nationals and access to the British Welfare State

The government have said that they are reviewing access to benefits for EU migrants. Briefing paper No 4.19 outlines the present position as a yardstick against which any such measures can be judged. We also make two recommendations.  

Benefits for Overseas Children Cost UK Taxpayer £1 million per week

The taxpayer is forking out over £1 million per week in child benefit to the parents whose children who do not even live in the UK, the think tank Migration Watch UK reveals today in a new Briefing Paper.

The revelation comes following the disclosure that child benefit and tax credits are paid in respect of almost 50,000 children who live across the EU.

The majority, almost 30,000, of the 50,000 children who receive child benefit and child tax credits at UK rates live in Poland.

Child benefit in the UK is worth £81.20 per month for the first child and £53.60 for the second and subsequent  children.  This is roughly four times higher than Polish rates.

Only in the UK, Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia and the Netherlands do the rules allow child benefit to be paid for children who live elsewhere in the EU. The remaining 22 countries require that the child be resident in the territory in order to qualify.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK, said, ‘It is absurd that child benefit is paid to children who do not even live in the UK. At a time that UK taxpayers are being asked to tighten their belts, the government is paying out over £1 million per week to support children in other countries where costs are, in any case, often much lower. The majority of EU countries have the good sense to ensure that the child in question must be resident in that country in order to qualify and it is about time the UK did the same.’

Note to Editors:

See Parliamentary Question, Mr Keith Vaz, 28 January 2013, Column 619W,  

Immigration from Romania and Bulgaria

Immigration from Romania and Bulgaria could amount to 50,000 a year in the first five years.  That is the conclusion of a study issued by Migration Watch UK today.  250,000 is the population of a city of the size of Plymouth or Newcastle. That number could be considerably higher if there were to be a movement of Roma to the UK or if some of the nearly one million Romanians in both Spain and Italy should transfer to Britain.

The government have so far declined to publish their own estimate. They are very conscious of the previous government’s catastrophic under estimate of immigration from Poland and other East European countries in 2004 which Migrationwatch described at the time as “almost worthless”.

This time round, with the experience of the East Europeans in mind, it is possible to offer a ball park estimate of likely immigration from Romania and Bulgaria.  As it happens their income per head is about 1/5^th of that of the UK – as was the case for Poland in 2004.  Furthermore their youth unemployment is very high as was also the case in Poland when they joined the EU and both countries now have established communities in Britain.

The major difference this time is that all other EU countries will also have to open their labour markets to Romania and Bulgaria in January 2014.  Fifteen smaller countries and Italy have already done so. As for larger countries, with youth unemployment in Spain at 56%, Italy at 37% and France at 27% it would seem that only Germany at 8% and the Netherlands at 9.7% are likely destinations for Romanian and Bulgarian migrants. Britain, with youth unemployment at 20%, is nonetheless an attractive destination partly because of its flexible labour market and partly because of the ease of access to its benefits system.

After examining three different methods of estimating the likely inflow of migrants from Romania and Bulgaria, Migration Watch UK has concluded that they would add between 30,000 and 70,000 to our population in each of the next 5 years – giving a central estimate of 50,000 per year. Claims in Parliament that there could be “an increase of some one third of a million over present levels, possibly within two years” seem exaggerated. However, the number of Roma who might come to Britain is a wild card.

A further wild card is the presence of nearly 1 million Romanians in Spain among whom nearly 1/3^rd of a million workers were unemployed in 2011. Even if they had access to unemployment pay in Spain their benefits would run out after one year. There must, therefore, be a significant risk that they will move to Britain where access to benefits does not depend on contributions – only on “habitual residence” which, in practice, is easily acquired. 

One finding of the analysis is that the International Passenger Survey, the basis of the official immigration statistics, only picked up half of the East European immigration to the UK. If this is repeated the official figure for net immigration, which the government are committed to reducing to tens of thousands, would be increased by only 25,000 rather than 50,000 a year.

Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch said “It is not good enough to duck making an estimate of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria. It is likely to be on a scale that will have significant consequences for housing and public services. It will also add further to the competition which young British workers already face. We have therefore produced our own estimate as a contribution to an important debate which must include the ease with which migrants to the UK can currently access the welfare state”.