Briefing on EU Migration Issues

April 2005

This briefing is accurate as of April 2005 only.

Up to date statistics can be found on the Home Office website - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ or contact the IPPR for the latest figures on free movement to the UK from accession countries.

The following are basic answers to commonly asked questions. More detailed information can be obtained from our office or the following websites:

Tackling Myths on Asylum: The Refugee Council publishes up to date, in depth answers to most asked questions. See www.refugeecouncil.org.uk.
The IPPR is one of the main think tanks dealing with issues of managed migration, and addressing anti-immigration briefing from Migration Watch and others. See www.ippr.org.
The Centre for European Reform is currently producing positive information on enlargement and free movement of labour. See www.cer.org.uk
The European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions has information on enlargement and migration at www.eurofound.eu.int/newsroom/migration.htm

1. How has free movement benefited the UK?

Enlargement received broad cross party support. Prior to May 1, the CBI and the TUC made an agreement to ensure migrant workers can contribute skills for the benefit of the UK. Post-enlargement, John Cridland, CBI deputy-director general, has welcomed the 'managed' numbers of workers who have come to the UK since May 2004, and the TUC has highlighted how workers from the new member states are meeting the unmet demand for low paid labour in rural and small-town Britain.

Recent Home Office figures also show workers from the new member states alleviating shortages in certain sectors such as in hospitals and agriculture. A 2005 survey by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors revealed that, despite a boom in construction with strong demand for labour, only 38% of surveyors reported recruitment difficulties, as opposed to 45% a year ago. According to Jill Craig, head of Europe policy at the Institute, European enlargement has helped to solve the shortage of home-grown skills. She said that Eastern European labour coming to Britain was "working fine". "It is not driving down wages".

Allowing workers from the new member states to come to the UK legally has also left open the possibility for UK workers to relocate. Many employers? organisations that were consulted by government in the run up to enlargement and supported free movement without transitional measures were lying low during the recent media controversy about numbers and did not defend previous positions.

The Home Secretary?s recent announcement introduces new restrictions including post-registration schemes for workers from the EU 8; this is less bureaucratic and cheaper than the work permit scheme which applies to non-EU workers.

Source:

EU workers plug skills gap', Financial Times, April 2 2005

2. What is the situation in the rest of the EU-15?

Prior to enlargement, a European Commission Eurobarometer survey suggested that only 1 per cent of the working population in the new member states would seek work in the UK, France, Germany and other established member states.
The findings also showed that the ?typical potential migrant from the acceding countries is young, educated to tertiary level or still studying and living as a single person with no dependents?, contradicting the belief widely held in some member states that enlargement would spark an influx of low skilled workers from central and eastern Europe.

Nevertheless, all the old member states except for the UK, Ireland, Italy and Sweden have imposed transitional restrictions on the right of residence of eight out of the ten new EU member states (excluding Cyprus and Malta). These may remain in place for up to seven years, after which time countries such as Germany believe the economies of these eight states should have grown, making migration less likely.

However, these restrictions are partly responses to public fears, rather than being based on predicted high-numbers of migrants. In fact the Commission estimates that only 220,000 accession state citizens will move to the EU 15 over the next five years, and this has been borne out by the small numbers of workers from the EU 8 moving to the UK, with economically beneficial effects.

Sources:

Eurobarometer Survey on Enlargement, 2002, released by the European Commission, February 2004.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Report, February 2004.
The Financial Times, 27 February 2004.

3. How have the accession countries been affected?

The European Commission say that there is actually a danger of ?brain drain? on some accession states and possible rapid negative impact on the economy on new member states other than Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta. Accession countries could lose between 3% and 5% of people who have achieved third-level education and more than 10% of their students.

However, according to figures from the Office of National Statistics, the vast majority of those coming from accession countries only stay three months. After this time migrants may return home having acquired new skills which they can use to the economic benefit of their home country.

Sources:

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2004. Institute of Migration, 2004.
New figures show Accession workers working for the UK, Home Office press release, November 11th 2004.

4. Is our benefit system open to abuse by workers from accession states?

No. While EU law specifies equal treatment of all nationals of EU member states in the area of benefits, this does not mean that new arrivals here have immediate access to benefits.

Someone who has not lived and worked in the UK will not normally have paid UK contributions, so will not be entitled to contributory benefits such as the state pension. Income-related benefits, tax credits and child benefit can only be claimed by those who are either ?habitually resident? or ?ordinarily resident? in the UK.

Prior to enlargement, the Home Secretary introduced changes making the Habitual Residence Test tougher to pass in his February Statement to the House of Commons. It takes at least three months for an application to be approved. Applicants must be able to demonstrate ?strong? ties to the UK and/or ?strong family ties?. If an applicant cannot demonstrate a legitimate reason for being in the UK, access to benefits will be denied. The HRT is regularly reviewed by the government in relation to its effect on the ground, and was an additional check in the social security system introduced in the 1990s.

Of the immigrants from accession countries registered in the UK between May and September 2004, 95% have no dependents, and only 2800 have tried to claim child benefit, out of 7 million people across the UK who receive it. Of these 2800 applications only 37% have been approved. Less than 0.3% of those receiving homelessness benefits are immigrants from accession countries, and this group have made only 500 applications for unemployment benefit, of which 97% have been refused immediately.

Source:

New Figures Show Accession Workers Working for the UK, Home Office press release, November 11th 2004.

5. Organisations like ?Migration Watch? say migrants are bad for the economy ? are they right?

According to the Economist (28/02/04) it is a myth that migrants ?steal jobs?, and this is a version of the ?lump labour? myth which says that there is only so much work to go around. In a flexible economy, the labour market adjusts to an increase in the supply of workers and more jobs are generated.

Research by the Home Office finds no evidence that previous migration flows in the 1980s and the 1990s have taken jobs away from the existing population.

Only 1 in every 300 workers in the UK is an accession country national, yet they generate £120m of GDP and contribute £20m in terms of tax and national insurance.

6. Do new migrants lower wages?

Recent Home Office research (University College London, 2003) suggests that wages among existing workers have not been materially affected by immigrants. The UCL research actually shows a rise. The most authoritative negative study by the National Research Council (NRC) found that new immigrants to the UK cut the wages of UK workers by less than 1 per cent, with those most affected being recently settled immigrants who tended to be in low wage jobs for which new immigrants were competing.

7. Is it not the reality that immigrants are more likely to claim benefits?

The Economist says that it is a myth that migrants to the UK are more likely to be ?benefit scroungers?. The vast majority ?come to find work and work hard?.

8. Is new immigration a drain on the economy?

Organisations like Migration Watch say that new immigration is a drain on the economy. It is true that there are costs associated with immediate migration and settlement ? housing, health and public services are affected, particularly in London and the South East, but these are short term net costs.

The Home Office said that in 1999 existing migrants contributed £2.5 billion more in taxes than they received in benefits like health and education. The National Research Council found that initial net costs to the taxpayer were very short term and concentrated in education provision for migrants with children. The CBI backed the Home Office figure of £2.5 billion net contribution in 1999. Treasury forecasts from 2002 also demonstrated this contribution to the economy, attributing 15% of projected economic growth to migration.

The long term contribution is exemplified by the NHS where 47% of nurses and 23% of doctors were born outside the UK.

In Scotland, The First Minister has publicly suggested new managed migration would be a positive solution for Scotland's ageing working age population.

Sources:

Greater London Authority, 2003
Home Office Report, 1999

9. ?Migration Watch? are constantly quoted in the press ? who are they and what are they saying?

Migration Watch are a very small group operating a website, but they successfully supply anti-immigration material to the UK tabloids on a regular basis. Sir Andrew Green and David Coleman (a demographer) believe that non-EU immigration to the UK should be zero because of potential ?integration problems?.

Reasonable sounding in interviews, they produce figures which are often wildly inaccurate estimates, using techniques like the quoting of the International Passenger Survey (ISP) to reveal how many people are entering and leaving the UK. The IPS samples everyone entering the UK including tourists and returning UK citizens as well as new immigrants!

Not everything they say is wrong. Their concern about housing pressure exacerbated by new immigration has some truth, but recent statements about higher NHS dental waiting lists being caused by immigrants have been quickly withdrawn. Reasonable statements mixed with serious inaccuracy about the undesirability of non-EU migrants even if they are needed in the economy, suggest a deeper agenda.

More information on Migration Watch and their techniques can be found in a Guardian Analysis article, ?A Swamp of Muddled Thinking? which reveals how they produce inaccurate, extreme statistics on both immigration and asylum issues and how these figures now go unquestioned by some media outlets. It is the only UK organisation using its own migration statistics while everyone else, on all sides of the debate uses Home Office figures.

Source:

The Guardian, Analysis, 7th August 2002

10. The rise in asylum applications continues?

No. Since 2002 the trend in asylum seekers has been firmly downwards. In 2004
33 921 people claimed asylum in Britain, compared to 49 405 in 2003, representing a reduction of 31%. In the rest of the EU-15 (excluding Italy), claims for asylum only fell by 17%.

Source:

Home Office Asylum Statistics: 4th Quarter 2004.

11. Myth Busting on Asylum.

Myth: Most asylum seekers actually come from safe countries.
Fact: Most refugees to the UK in recent years have been from the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Colombia, Turkey, Iraq and Iran and China ? countries where there has been serious conflict or grave human rights abuses.

MYTH: Asylum seekers abuse the system
Fact: 75% of initial decisions on applications for asylum in the UK are refused.
However, this does not include appeals; of which 1 in 5 overturn the original decision, rising to 50 - 83% of applications by nationals of states with documented civil unrest, war or instability such as Iraq or Rwanda.

Britain already has restrictive measures in place to discourage asylum seekers from coming to the UK. Transport companies bringing passenger to GB using false documentation face being fined, and those passengers may be sentenced to up to 2 years imprisonment. The fact that asylum seekers travel using false documentation should not prejudice their case, as this is often the only way for some to escape their country. The fact that they are willing to face such restrictions in coming to the UK demonstrates their desperation.

MYTH: Many Asylum seekers are illegal
Fact: Britain signed the 1951 Convention on Refugees, which means that anyone has the right to apply for asylum here. Therefore there is technically no such thing as an 'illegal asylum seeker', and the Press Complaints Commission was recently forced to issue guidance to journalists using this term after a number of complaints. The fact that asylum seekers may enter the UK illegally doesn?t mean they aren?t all credible.

MYTH: Refugees are able to apply for asylum in Britain from abroad
Fact: Genuine refugees are people who have been forced to flee their country as a result of human rights abuses. They cannot apply for asylum in another country whilst still in their home country for fear of reprisals, so often they have no choice as to where they claim. In escaping persecution or death in their home country many asylum seekers undergo extensive physical and mental trauma.

MYTH: Once asylum seekers enter Britain they never want to go back to their country of origin.
Fact: Many refugees often go back to their country when the reasons that forced them to leave no longer exist. Most South Africans and Chileans who fled to Britain returned when it was safe for them to do so. The vast majority of Kosovo Albanians have also returned, despite the fragile situation in Kosovo. Many do stay however.

MYTH: Refugees are a threat to the British way of life and to our national identity
Fact: 17 Nobel Laureates, 71 Fellows of the Royal Society and 50 Fellows of the British Academy are refugees. Fish and chips were brought to Britain by Jews expelled from Portugal in the 17th Century. The Mini and the Morris Minor were invented by a refugee from the war between Greece and Turkey. 1970s Ugandan Asian refugees have become major job creators in the UK. Among many, the trade union leader Bill Morris, the economist Lord Desai, the newsreader Trevor MacDonald, the violinist Lord Menuin, the heart specialist Lord Yacoub, the industrialist Lord Paul and the footballer John Barnes were all immigrants or refugees to Great Britain.

MYTH: Refugees are going to be flooding into rural Britain as a result of dispersal
Fact: In terms of number of asylum seekers being dispersed per capita in the region, the number of asylum seekers dispersed proportionate to the number of local population is tiny. This does not mean dispersal is unproblematic as most dispersals are to deprived areas, but actual numbers are relatively small.

MYTH: Britain is in danger of being swamped by asylum seekers
Fact:
1) Britain hosts less than 2% of the world?s refugees.
2) In fact developing countries which host 72% of the global refugee population. Even amongst EU member states, the UK only ranks 9th in terms of refugees hosted.
3) With a GDP per capita of £22 500, Britain only has 2 refugees per 1000 inhabitants, whilst with an average GDP per capita of £595, Kenya hosts 7 refugees per 1000 citizens.
4) In terms of wealth compared to number of refugees supported, Britain comes only 78th in the world, and sixth in Europe.
5) A recent Mori poll shows how important it is to give the correct information ? on average British people think that 23% of the world's refugees and asylum seekers are in the UK.

Source: UNHCR, 2003. Attitudes Towards Refugees: A survey of public opinion (MORI).

MYTH: Britain is a soft touch for asylum seekers
Fact:

Immigration controls in Europe are getting tougher. Asylum seekers must fill in a 19-page document, in English, on arrival in the UK.
Restrictions on legal aid to assist them in doing so means that a large number of applications are rejected on grounds of non-compliance.
Exceptional leave to remain (ELR), which lasted for four years, has been replaced by ?humanitarian protection?, lasting 6 months.
In 2003 the vast majority of asylum applications were rejected.
In 2003, whilst a single pensioner received a guaranteed minimum income of £98.15, a single asylum seeker received £37.77, 30% below the poverty line.
Asylum seekers cannot claim welfare benefits - if they are destitute they can apply to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), the government department responsible for supporting destitute asylum applicants.
There is no question of an asylum seeker being able to choose where to live; accommodation is nearly always in hard to let areas. NASS does not give asylum seekers or landlords any money for furniture or luxury items.
In addition asylum seekers are not able to find safe, legal work, leading to tragedies such as that at Morecambe Bay. Since January 8 2003 support has been withheld from the majority of people who apply for asylum once inside Britain rather than at ports. According to the Mayor of London?s ?Destitution by Design? report, 2 000 asylum seekers are made destitute each year.
Oxfam and the Refugee Council carried out a survey which revealed that 85% of asylum seekers and refugees experience hunger, 95% cannot afford to buy clothes and shoes and 80% cannot maintain good health.

However, recent increases in the number of asylum seekers show that these harsh measures have not put them off coming to the UK. People seeking asylum in the UK do not come for benefits, they come for a number of very valid reasons, such as families ties, an established community of people of their own national or ethnic origin or because they speak English.

MYTH: Migrant workers do not contribute to the UK economy
Fact:

The Home Secretary and the CBI have praised migrant workers who make a 'disproportionate' contribution to the economy, paying £2.5bn more in tax than they take out in services. Most asylum seekers would prefer to support themselves than to be supported by the government, and some of Britain's most successful entrepreneurs are former refugees.
With more than 650,000 vacancies in the labour market and low UK unemployment of 4.7%, migrants can address key skills shortages. There is no evidence of negative impact on wages or employment rates for the domestic population.
Government spending on all aspects of immigration and asylum is £1.7bn, or 0.425% of total government spending. It is true that there are costs of migration, especially in education, housing and health, but there is an overall economic benefit.

Myth: Our council tax bills are going up to pay for asylum seekers.
Fact: The costs of looking after asylum seekers and processing their claims are met by central government. This includes accommodation and subsistence costs.

Myth: Asylum Seekers are forcing local people to wait longer for essential health services.
Fact: It is true that some GPs in inner city areas have felt the pressure of asylum seekers as patients adding to already long lists. However GPs are mainly independent self-employed contractors to the NHS, who are under no obligation to accept particular patients and do not have to accept new ones. Asylum seekers are not given preferential treatment over UK citizens when they apply to register with a GP.

Source: Contractual arrangements in healthcare, GMC

MYTH: Asylum seeker children are swamping our schools
Fact: Asylum seeker children are not sent to school unless there are places vacant. With many refugee children in some inner city schools there will be a clear teaching challenge, but according to a report by OFSTED, asylum seeker children are often seen as an asset by schools, as they 'enrich the cultural life of the school'.

Myth: Asylum seekers don?t want to work.
Fact: Many asylum seekers have left behind businesses or skilled jobs in their home country and are keen to start work and earn. However, current UK legislation prohibits them from working legally in Britain until they are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain.

MYTH: Refugees increase unemployment and take jobs away from 'real' British citizens
Fact: Britain's working population is declining, and of this population, the number aspiring to do clean, sedentary, well paid jobs are rising. It is often foreigners who do arduous, low-paid jobs in cleaning or catering, or who work as care assistants, do casual work on farms, drive mini-cabs and deliver pizzas.

Due to the low birth rate, Britain's working population is declining at a rate which means that migrants will need to be imported, just to keep the working population stable between now and 2050 and to ensure that pensions can be provided for our aging working-age population. However, in 2003 Home Office figures show that 513 000 people migrated to Britain, unchanged from last year, whilst over half that number (a record total of 362 000) of Britons emigrated.

Myth: Asylum seekers are linked to criminal gangs.
Fact: The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) confirmed in 2002 that there is absolutely no evidence of higher rates of criminality amongst asylum seekers, although it is the case that come asylum seeekers and foregin nationals will have committed crimes for which the law in most cases indicated depoprtation following completion of sentence. Statistics show that there has been no refugee crime wave. Following dispersal, regional and metropolitan police forces have acknowledged increased attacks on asylum seekers. There are clear links between crime and illegal migration trafficking, but the vast majority of asylum seekers are unconnected to such gangs or are the victims of illegal traffickers. Tabloid newspapers continue to give prominence to salacious stories of refugee criminality, giving an impression at clear odds with ACPO facts.

Myth: Asylum seeking and terrorism are completely linked.
Fact: We have to be vigilant against terrorism and that includes proper checks on those entering the UK. Potential terrorists are as likely to be legally resident, UK citizens, enter the UK legally as tourists or visitors or illegally with forged documents. New asylum seekers in the UK are already screened, fingerprinted, issued with ID cards and security checked.