UK immigration - the uninformed debate

Statistics relating to UK immigration can generate an enormous amount of publicity. They appear in national newspapers, often accompanying alarmist articles, and filter into Whitehall policy divisions. The Migration Observatory, an Oxford-based think-tank, has sought to challenge the reliance on these ‘facts’ in the public debate on UK immigration. The centre released a report in 2011 critically analysing how figures are collated and used.

Net migration numbers have been making headlines since Immigration Minister Damian Green issued a pledge to bring them down "from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands over the course of the parliament”. The struggle to fulfill this promise has led to mocking commentary in the press. In August last year a contributor to The Sun described the figures as "as bad as they can be”. An accurate and conclusive net migration statistic cannot be found at the centre of this political storm however. Two major data sources can be used to calculate net migration; both rely on surveys, and both produce markedly different final figures. At one stage 60,000 people separated the two estimates.

Another topic which fuels press coverage is migrants’ use of public services. The Daily Mail in March this year ran the headline "Timebomb under our primary schools: How uncontrolled immigration has created primaries with 1,000 pupils and forced children to eat lunch in shifts”. The Migration Observatory points out that there is in fact very little information on the impact of migrants on UK schools. Enrolment data does not record nationality, country of birth or immigration status. All that is surveyed is whether English is the first language spoken at home. This provides a crude analysis of immigration status at best. Many migrants who come to the UK speak English at home whilst many British nationals do not. Research found no "systematic data and analysis”relating to the impact of migrant populations on public services.

The Oxford think-tank’s report reveals the shallow or non-existent foundations upon which much of the debate on immigration is based. It might not be a surprise that certain newspapers are basing articles on speculation and prejudice. That government ministers have shown themselves to be similarly influenced is worrying for those whose businesses and livelihoods depend on legal migration.