The Quiet Man is turning up the volume. We wish he wouldn't.
IDS has an op-ed in the Times (£) today in which he promises to take on the people who wish to come to Britain “simply because of our benefits”.
“Freedom of movement must be about work – it was never meant to assist benefit tourism,” the tough-cum-quiet man writes.
It’s fairly clear what Mr Duncan Smith and the Tories are trying to do here. In talking up the problem of benefit tourism, the Conservatives are trying to outflank UKIP from the right. Because the government is relatively restricted as to what it can do to control EU migration to Britain – freedom of movement and all that – the Tory party likes to make out that benefit tourism is a significant problem.
That way it can pretend to be doing something – anything – about immigration.
In reality, however, in singling out so-called benefit tourism IDS may as well be wasting his breath, for the number of people who travel to the UK to claim benefits is statistically insignificant.
According to a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) report from 2011, 6.4 per cent of those claiming working aged benefits were non-uk nationals, meaning British nationals were two-and-a-half times more likely to be claiming working age benefits than non-UK nationals.
This graph from Fullfact demonstrates a similar trend right across the board.
In every category UK nationals are more likely to claim benefits than foreign migrants.
“Of the 2 million net migrants to the UK from the eight eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004, just 13,000 people have claimed jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). This figure was not disputed by No 10.” The Guardian, March 26 2013
It just isn’t that easy to be a benefit tourist. Something called the habitual residence test, which was introduced in 1994 by John Major’s government, means that before being allowed to claim any benefits in the UK immigrants are interviewed about their reasons for entering the country, how long they have been here, as well as their work status and history.
As a rule a person would need to have been in Britain for at least one to three months before they are able to claim any kind of benefit.
There is always the possibility that someone could come to the UK, spend all their money during the first month or so before parking themselves on benefits. However considering the government’s rhetoric around welfare reform – that it is ‘getting tough’ with those whose ‘curtains are still drawn at midday’ – this seems unlikely. If British nationals can no longer ‘languish’ on benefits, where is the evidence to suggest that foreign nationals will find it any easier to do so?
In sum, today’s op-ed by IDS is pure hot air. The Quiet Man is turning up the volume. We wish he wouldn’t.
63 Responses to “Iain Duncan Smith says he’s going to stop benefit tourism. What benefit tourism?”
LB
1. What about pensions? 11.5K is just the average spend. On top you have the pensions. Why have you ignored that? I think you will be horified as to the share of increase in pension debts you have to cover.
2. Why should we accept any migrants who are below average in that they don’t pay at least 11K in wages.
3. So what factor do you want to work in for the profit element? Do we raise the threshold for people who don’t generate a profit?
It is an average. Migration is optional. Why accept below average migrants who take money from others to support them,
LB
So the employer of the widget maker will be quite happy to top up their wages so that they pay 11.5K in tax to employ them .
LB
And how does that deal with the 29% of migrants on benefits.
What profits are they generating?
LB
So what net financial contribution is a migrant on benefits making?
LB
Another way of looking at it.
11.5K is the average tax needed. If a migrant doesn’t not contribute 11.5K to the tax revenues, on average it means that someone else pays the price.
They lose out on services or the lose out because they have to subsidise that migrant.
Since migration is optional, its very simple. Migrants should be allowed in if they pay more tax, and not if they don’t.
If you want migrants who don’t make the grade, here’s an offer. You sponsor them and make up the difference out of your own pocket. Don’t force other people to
On the pension front, the ONS put the rise in pensions debts running at 734 bn a year.
How about factoring that in to the bill?