Previous Press Releases
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001January
Press Releases for January 2010
January 25, 2010
Immigration ‘No answer’ to Pension Time Bomb
January 18, 2010
Immigration curbs could have a decisive impact on the election result
Second only to the economy in key marginals
January 2, 2010
Massive Increase in Family Visitors
Appeals Now Cost Tax Payers £1 Million a Week
Full Text of Releases : January 2010
Immigration ‘No answer’ to Pension Time Bomb
The ‘myth’ that continued mass immigration is the answer to Britain’s pensions time bomb has been described as ‘totally dishonest’ by a new report out today.
The report from think tank Migrationwatch, finds that the present ratio of workers to pensioners could only be sustained by immigration at a level that would bring the population of the UK to 119 million by 2051 and 303 million by the end of the century - obviously absurd propositions.
‘The pensions myth is just one in a long series of excuses that are trotted out in support of justifying the highest levels of immigration in our history, and each time they are examined in detail they fall apart as this study again demonstrates,’ said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green.
The report reviews the prospects for this ratio - known as the Potential Support Ratio (PSR) - in the light of the most recent population projections from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). It finds that, with no migration at all the ratio would fall from today’s level of 4.15 to 1.9 in 2051. If net migration continues at 180,000 a year, as the ONS predicts, the PSR would drop to 2.4 in that year. However, this improvement in the support ratio would require a continuing conveyor belt of new immigrants resulting in an extra 13.6 million people with all that that implies in what is already one of the most crowded countries in Europe.
The report quotes four major studies which have dismissed this approach. Most recently, the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs concluded that "arguments in favour of high immigration to defuse the "pensions time bomb" do not stand up to scrutiny…"
‘The Government have been running this dishonest argument for years. They have recently shaded it to talk about "helping" with the pensions problem but the reality is that any significant impact requires a huge and continuing increase in our population. They know it is no answer to the pensions problem and it is time they levelled with the British public and dropped this absurd argument,’said Sir Andrew.
Notes
1 The most recent example of this was the Home Secretary appearing before the Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on 15 December 2009. Q78: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmhaff/uc165/uc16502.htm
Alan Johnson: .... You also have to take other factors into account. When I first became a Cabinet Minister in 2004 the big issue was the dependency ratio. We have an ageing population who are living longer ----
Q78 Mr Clappison: That is a different issue.
Alan Johnson: No, it is not a different issue, because at the time then we were looking at a dependency ratio that was 12 people working for every person retired when Lloyd George introduced the State Pension in 1907, to a situation where we now have four people working for every person retired, and to another projection in 2050 where we will only have two people working for every person retired. With a pay-as-you-go pension system those ramifications meant: how are we going to survive as a society with not enough young people to do the work? All of those elements are relevant.
Back to top
Immigration curbs could have a decisive impact on the election result Second only to the economy in key marginals
The extent to which immigration is likely to play a decisive role in the forthcoming election is spelled out in a new poll published today.
The poll, conducted by YouGov for Migrationwatch, was held in the vital 57 “marginal” seats which the Conservatives must win to gain a reasonable working majority; 43 are Labour held and 14 are held by the Liberal Democrats. The description below refers only to Labour held seats. The figures for Lib Dem held seats were very similar as shown in the tables.
The poll found that only the economy is more important to voters in these seats. When asked which issue was most likely to influence their vote, 36% of all voters in Labour held seats named the economy while 13% named immigration. Taxation and the NHS were next at 8% and 6 % respectively. Among those intending to vote Labour at the next election, 42% named the economy. Immigration and the NHS came equal second with 9%.
‘The polling numbers tell us yet again that immigration is a matter of deep concern to a large majority of the population and that they are likely to respond very positively to parties that seriously address them,’ said Migrationwatch chairman, Sir Andrew Green.
The poll found that 85% of people in Labour held marginal seats, were worried (with 49% very worried) about the population reaching 70 million by 2029 as official figures suggest. 75% of voters in these seats believe that the right level of net immigration to Britain was 50,000 a year or less (compared to 160,000 last year); indeed 49% wanted "one in, one out" or no immigration at all.
The poll also found that 44% in Labour held marginals would be more likely (23% much more likely) to vote Conservative if David Cameron were to say that a Conservative government would reduce immigration to 50,000 or below in order to keep the UK population below 70 million. Only 5% in these seats were less likely (2% much less likely) to vote Conservative in these circumstances. In Lib Dem held seats the response was almost the same.
In response to a similar question about Gordon Brown, 30% of voters in Labour marginals were more likely (13% much more likely) to vote Labour while 7% were less likely (2% much less likely) to vote for that party.
Other questions revealed a generally negative view of immigration. Asked whether they agreed that the current level of immigration has an adverse effect on local public services such as schools and hospitals, 72% in Labour held seats agreed (38% strongly) while 19% disagreed. 54% of voters in Labour held seats thought that recent immigration had been bad for the economy while only 19% thought it had been good (20% had no view). 59% in labour held seats thought that recent immigration had been bad for British society as a whole while 18% thought that it had been good (with 19% saying neither).
Said Sir Andrew: ‘These are very significant figures which show that the public are implacably opposed to a continuation of the mass immigration encouraged by this Government and are tired of having their concerns ignored. What they want are clear manifesto commitments to a dramatic reduction in the numbers.’
Note: The sample size was 2027 GB adults and the field work was conducted between 6 and 8 January.
Back to top
Massive Increase in Family Visitors
Appeals Now Cost Tax Payers £1 Million a Week
Appeals against the decision of immigration officials to refuse family visas to enter the UK have increased eight fold since charges were abolished by the government in 2002 and are now running at over a thousand a week. They cost the taxpayer £1m a week, says a report from think-tank Migrationwatch.
Unlike ordinary visitors, "family visitors" have a right of appeal but the definition of "family" includes first cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces etc.
The report notes that there has been a huge increase in applications in recent years. Last year, just three countries - India, Pakistan and Nigeria - produced nearly 200,000 applications between them.
Said Migrationwatch Chairman, Sir Andrew Green. 'The government talk up their so-called tough points based system for work permits but leave gaping holes elsewhere. They have ducked the issue of family visitors for years. Obviously, family members should be able to visit relatives in Britain but such visits need to be properly regulated. There is a clear risk that, once here, some of these visitors will stay on illegally knowing that the chance of being removed is remote. Furthermore, in current financial circumstances, it is no longer acceptable that taxpayers should pay the appeal costs for foreign nationals wishing to visit Britain. The definition of a family visitor is so wide that it could include as many as 120 relatives of a middle aged person in Britain. It should be narrowed and charges which the government abolished in 2002 should be re-introduced.'
Sir Andrew said that urgent changes were required:
a) Fees should be re-instated. There is no reason why the British tax payer should pay the appeal costs of foreign visitors.
b) The definition should be substantially tightened, at least until exit controls are in place. In particular, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and first cousins should no longer be included. This would reduce the number of eligible relatives by up to 68.
c) The right to sponsor family visitors should be confined to British citizens. The relatives of others should apply as ordinary visitors.
a) In cases of doubt, there should be provision for sponsors to deposit a bond, if they so wished, to guarantee the departure of their relative.
Back to top