The economic and fiscal benefits of migration have not always been felt locally
Top of today’s news is a report on the size of migrant populations in the UK, produced by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory. Except it is not really national news at all – the data is entirely what might is expected from Office for National Statistics (ONS) analysis of who is coming and who is leaving the UK.
The Migration Observatory figures measure the number of migrants – overseas-born – people living in England, a number that demographers term ‘migrant stock’. The Census and the quarterly Labour Force Survey are used to make this calculation. This shows that between 2011 and 2014 and extra 565,000 migrants were added to the population of England.
The ONS figures which were published last week measure migrant flow – how many migrants are arriving and leaving, dan use the International Passenger Survey to make this calculation. When emigration numbers are subtracted from immigration we have ‘net migration’ – the statistic that has come to symbolise the success or failure of migration policy. Net migration in the year to June 2012 was 167,000. It was 182,000 in the year to June 2013 and 260,000 in the year to June 2014.
Both sets of figures show that migration from eastern and central Europe has again increased after a lull between 2008 and 2011. Labour has blamed recruitment agencies and unscrupulous employers for these trends. But a conversation with a new migrant shows why migration is growing. The UK economy is growing and the sterling is particularly strong at the moment. One pound will buy you 5.7 Polish zloty today. Back in 2008 there were only 4 Polish zloty to £1, so money earned in the UK was worth less when sent home.
Migration from eastern Europe is quite closely correlated with exchange rates. In 2008 sterling crashed against the zloty and other eastern European currencies. In the 12 months to December 2008 net migration from the 2004 accession countries was just 20,000 people. In comparison, in the year to September 2014 net migration from these countries came to 78,000.
Three of the 2004 accession countries – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – are now members of the Eurozone. Estonia has used the Euro the longest: since 2011. It is significant to note that there has been little migration from this country to western Europe. My prediction is that Eurozone membership has the potential to reduce migration from Latvia and Lithuania migration.
But however future migration flows pan out, there is no denying that some areas are experiencing significant population growth caused by international migration. Today’s Migration Observatory figures are broken down by local authority district. What is striking is the uneven distribution of international migrants across the UK. Despite recent increases, the numbers of migrants in many northern local authorities is still small – less than three per cent of the overall population in most local authorities in the North East.
Some 55 per cent of England’s 7.9 million overseas-born people residing in London and the South East. Some of today’s media comment has argued that rapid population growth places a strain on local public services in these areas.
While almost all new migrants are working and pay taxes, including council tax, it is important to note that local authorities have seen unprecedented cuts to their budgets. The economic and fiscal benefits of migration have not always been felt locally. Moreover, councils now receive a three-year financial settlement from central government. While a three-year budgetary cycle provides funding stability for local authorities, it cannot cope with rapid population change.
The youthful demographic profile of migrant population raises some specific issues for future local public service planning, for example, maternity services, school place management and the regulation of private-rental accommodation. International migration means that over the next ten years more school places will be needed in many parts of London and the South East. In such circumstances it is essential that local public services are funded sufficiently to cope with population change.
Over the last 15 years migrants have brought substantial national benefits through increased tax revenues, skills and entrepreneurship. But these national benefits have not always trickled down locally. It is time to reverse this situation of ‘national gain and local pain’ by providing local authorities with the means to manage population growth and promote integration. This should be a priority of the next government, not the flawed net migration target.
Jill Rutter is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward and writes on migration and family policy
41 Responses to “Immigration: national gain should not mean local pain”
Guest
You know what the Jew is. You understand the “mind” of the enemy. Or rather, you just project your own views onto me, when you come here to specifically annoy those of leftist ideologies.
How dare I call you out on your censorious tactics, as you try and silence other views. Again.
Leon Wolfeson
“you plastic socialists”
Keep the PC bigotry rolling. I’m no form of socialist or communist, of course.
And Blair is absolutely no form of leftist or socialist either.
Moreover, IS shows what happens when we don’t intervene.
Then you say that the 1% can “least afford” immigration. I don’t care if you live in social housing or not, you’re trying to use anecdote against the studies on this. You live the high life, no mere luxury, as you yell that not blocking the borders, ending trade and smashing wages is SO terrible for your rich.
And no, you’re racist if you express racist opinions. How dare they be round where you live – as you admit you’re not even patriotic, so it can’t be “British” which motivates you – what is it then, skin colour? accent?
Also, of course, the EU has defended many of my basic rights and blocked government surveillance projects. But you want out of that, too.
jeremycraigweston
“This shows that between 2011 and 2014 and extra 565,000 migrants were added to the population of England.”
But it’s not a problem for you is it?
Well it is for me.
This is from this morning’s compulsory, (and being monitored by the DW&P,) jobs search:
B&Q Customer Advisor – TradePoint Department-1500002247
Salary Banding 10,000 – 12,000 Pound Sterling (GBP)
Contract Type
: Part-time Contract Status: Fixed Term
Oldham
This vacancy was posted 2 days ago and has already had 280 reviews; which means that there have probably been more or less the same number of applications, in under 2 days.
Few things I can think off illustrate the real unemployment situation round here quite so clearly or so unambiguously.
DRbilderburg
You assume a lot and know absolutely nothing
One of my best friends is Ukrainian
Another Nigerian
Not being able to put me in a box is proving difficult isn’t it
You’ll keep defending mass economic migration, austerity, and endless war to the death literally
As for IS if we wanted to destroy them we could by denying them state support/sponsorship, yet more BS Islamic Al Qaeda bogeymen, useful to achieve geopolitical interests for the west and and gulf theocracies. IE our allies ,but don’t take my word for it
You can bruhar till your hearts content when British tommies give em a lesson, teach those damm Islamists We’ll democratize em ey wot ol chum
i don’t know which part of left wing you’re representing sounds like the Blair wing advocating endless wars, intervening on humanitarian grounds, then when the going gets tough say we’ve achieved a miracle then leave, for the poor beggars we’ve left behind a life of absolute hell awaits them, then they become yet another country whose population seeks refuge in the west to escape the hell we leave behind
forgive me my cynicism but in defending the EU Which EU are you defending, the pro austerity one or the humanitarian one
Pro austerity 1000s of greeks have committed suicide over austerity, not bankers shipping billionaires or the top 1% ,were talking pensioners and those least able to afford it ,yet another attack on the poor who were not responsible for any of it
How about sanctions against Iran, in sanctioning them for nothing we punish the sick and those least able to weather the sanctions storm, is that the humanitarian EU you support, or giving support to violent sectarian racist oligarchs now in charge of the Ukraine
Guest
Oh right, allowing trade and crossing problems is the issue.
You blame the Other for the real issue – austerity and capitalism, internal British issues. Cutting us off from the world, ensuring that wages drop sharply and that your type of job becomes all that’s ever on offer…that thousands will pile into anything to escape starving on the streets…