Press Releases
Previous Press Releases
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001December November October September August July June May April March February January
Press Releases for May 2005
May 2, 2005
Clear choice between parties on immigration
May 1, 2005
Benefit of East European immigration challenged
Full Text of Releases : May 2005
May 2, 2005
Clear choice between parties on immigration
There is a clear choice between the three main parties on immigration and asylum when votes are cast this week, says a new report out today.
Its key conclusion is that Labour and Liberal Democrats have no proposals to limit immigration while the Conservatives intend to put a cap on numbers.
The report says that all the party manifestos are designed to sound tough on immigration but they have to be examined carefully against the track record of each party.
The government’s measures on asylum have got the numbers down from a high peak. But they have also actively encouraged economic immigration and there has been a substantial increase in the number of spouses admitted. Asylum is now less than 20% of total foreign immigration.
‘There are some similarities, probably deliberate, such as the Labour and Liberal Democrat adoption of a ‘points’ system, for work permits. But the fundamental issue remains overall scale,’ said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch who produced the report. ‘Here - contrary to what some commentators have tried to suggest - the main parties are far apart.’
‘Immigration under this Government has tripled – despite hardly a mention in their last two manifestos. It will now add five million to our population in the next thirty years, which is five times the population of Birmingham. Yet England is already second only to Holland as the most densely populated country in Europe’.
'The Conservatives have said that they would make a substantial reduction in immigration, in contrast to Labour, but they have not been specific.’
Sir Andrew added; ‘Poll after poll shows that a large majority believe that immigration should be reduced – but, so far, their views have been ignored. Tough sounding talk is no substitute for a firm limit. That will not be easy to achieve but it must be the declared goal if public concern is to be eased.’
Back to top
May 1, 2005
Benefit of East European immigration challenged
A report out today casts doubt on the benefits of immigration from Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
Government claims that the existence of 600,000 job vacancies justifies the highest levels of immigration in our history do not stand up to serious scrutiny says a new report. (Read report)
The report, from think-tank Migrationwatch, says that importing labour is self-defeating because it generates more demand leading to further “shortages” of labour – in effect an insatiable demand for immigration.
Said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green: ‘The fact is that, between 2001 and 2004 the number of vacancies actually increased despite net immigration totalling nearly half a million in the same period. This confirms the view that, in an economy operating close to capacity, there will always be some labour shortages. They will not be “filled” by East Europeans as the new immigrants will also add to demand.’
‘600,000 people represent just over 2% of the workforce. Some vacancies are to be expected in a dynamic economy. Indeed it is essential if people are to be able to change jobs.
‘But only a quarter of the vacancies are for skilled workers. Furthermore, as migrant workers are nearly twice as likely to be unemployed as indigenous workers, it seems that there is a mismatch between immigrants and vacancies’.
This view was further supported by the experience in London where there is a high concentration of immigrants – but similar skill shortages to the rest of the UK.
‘This indicates that immigration is helping to fill some unskilled jobs, but having little effect on skills shortages,’ he said. ‘Indeed higher skilled vacancies are more difficult to fill in London. The government’s own report shows that 80% of the East Europeans who have registered are earning less than £5.99 per hour.’
The new evidence supports the view expressed by Martin Wolf, the Chief Economic Commentator at the Financial Times (article dated 27 January 2005):
“This is a self-defeating policy: if the response to “shortages” is to import labour, additional demand for goods and services and further shortages of labour will emerge. The argument from shortages creates an open-ended demand for more immigration: if the UK had a population of 120m it would still have job shortages and so a demand for yet more immigration. The demand could never be satisfied.”
Sir Andrew said, 'It is no surprise that employers are glad to recruit overseas as it avoids both higher wages and training costs but overseas recruitment is a disincentive to training and re-training British workers – and to labour saving investment.’
‘Employers are laughing all the way to the bank but it is the tax payer who foots the bill for the additional infrastructure required for the extra population as large scale immigration has a substantial impact of population growth and congestion. Now that East Europeans have a right to come and work in Britain, it is essential to make a compensating reduction in immigration from elsewhere.’
Back to top