TUC: Migrant workers give more to the economy than they take

The TUC have published a detailed report on the impact of migrant workers:

Contrary to far right accusations that immigrants are a drain on the welfare state, TUC research shows that migrant workers are paying more in taxes than the value of the public services they receive. Across the economy the arrival of migrant workers has not depressed jobs or wages, and although there is limited evidence of some local effect on wages and employment for low-skilled workers, so far low-skilled workers have not lost out thanks to the vibrant economy.

To continue with that good performance we need to ensure unscrupulous employers stop taking advantage of migrant workers' lack of knowledge of their rights and poor English, the report says. The solution is to crack down on the minority of bad employers by properly enforcing employment rights such as the minimum wage and closing loopholes such as the poor protection enjoyed by agency workers, not by taking it out on the migrant workers suffering the exploitation.

The report is to be welcomed. I have often heard the far-right criticising migrant workers. It is good to have some research to balance the debate. One thing I often hear is that migrant workers are working for less than the minimum wage. As the TUC quite rightly points out, that is the fault of unscrupulous employers, not the workers.

Now Blears uses the dog whistle

Hard on the heels of Margaret Hodge, now Hazel Blears is using the dog whistle on immigration:

"We have got areas in Salford where private landlords are letting properties with 10 and 12 people in there. Now the community doesn't object to the people, they object to the exploitation and the fact that that leads to people being on the street drinking, anti-social behaviour. They don't object to the people being there, but they object if they are undercutting wages and not getting the national minimum wage and they are not abiding by health and safety, so you have got to enforce the law."

Simon Woolley, director of Operation Black Vote, accused Ms Blears of pandering to far-right rhetoric. "There is absolutely no evidence migrant workers are drinking on the street and most people would accept migrant workers are doing a good job for a fair price."

Norman Lamb, a Liberal Democrat MP, said: "To paint this sort of picture plays to dangerous and wholly wrong stereotypes."

Extraordinary criticism by fellow Cabinet Ministers of Margaret Hodge

I feel somewhat vindicated. Oh, alright then, I feel completely vindicated.

Last Sunday I criticised Margaret Hodge's article on housing, particularly her use of language used by the BNP - specifically the word "indigenous".

I then spent much of the week responding to hostile comments about this, including several remarkably convoluted arguments.

Well, now Madame Hodge has faced fierce criticism for her remarks from her own cabinet colleagues - Peter Hain and Alan Johnson. It is not often that you get Cabinet Ministers criticising another one like this. I cannot remember when it last happened. In fact, I'll stick my neck out and say that it hasn't happened in modern politics - since, say, 1945. (I'd welcome comments on this from those with better memories than mine). It is extraordinary.

Johnson accused Hodge of "using the language of the BNP". He said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that immigrants are causing a problem with social housing....My problem is with that is that's the kind of language of the BNP and it's grist to the mill of the BNP.

Neighbouring MP Jon Cruddas has also weighed into the debate:

Housing is allocated according to need and it is disingenuous for Margaret Hodge to suggest otherwise.The problem is lack of housing supply and it's a shame she wasn't so vocal in the campaign for the building of more council housing.

Shelter: Margaret Hodge's 'myth about immigrants and housing allocation'

I am indebted to Michael White in the Guardian for providing some perspective on Margaret Hodge's article on immigration and housing:

In her (Hodge's) case only the coded word "indigenous" was deemed offensive, just as David Blunkett was chided for repeating Mrs Thatcher's 1978 use of "swamped" in regard to schools and doctors' surgeries. The British Sociological Association has a list of racially sensitive words which is constantly evolving.

The BSA describes the use of the word "indigenous" in the British context as "not a helpful term as it would be difficult to identify the indigenous British..."

White quite rightly brings the debate back to facts, rather than "myths about immigrants":

Mrs Hodge was challenged to provide hard evidence, not "rumour and inaccuracy", to justify giving the oxygen of publicity to the BNP which has 12 councillors in Barking and Dagenham. It feeds on myths about immigrants. The fact is that the Labour council's points system does give preference to people with local links; that the real local problem is the cumulative shortage of new social housing to replace that lost to the Tory rent-to-buy policy which Labour has not rectified since 1997.

Last year the number of council and housing association units built in the borough fell from a very modest 572 to 230. What is true, as Jon Cruddas, Dagenham's Labour MP now running to be deputy leader, keeps saying is that social services in poor boroughs do feel the pressure of globalisation. So do falling local wage rates. "Racialising" problems will not help, better statistics leading to more Whitehall cash will, argues Cruddas whose local activists beat back the BNP. Labour in Barking did not, add Mrs Hodge's critics.

Shelter also confirm White's point:

In response to Margaret Hodge's comment on the allocation of social housing in the Observer "A message to my fellow immigrants" (20 May 2007), Adam Sampson, chief executive of Shelter, said: "The failure to build new homes and the devastating impact of the Right to Buy leaves the small amount of social housing stock vulnerable to being exploited for political means. "These comments perpetuate the myth that social homes are given to new immigrants coming to the UK at the expense of the indigenous population - when in fact homes are allocated by balancing what people are entitled to against immediate housing need. "The real problem is the desperate shortage of social housing, which is why Gordon Brown must now deliver on his commitment last week to build more social homes to tackle the ever-deepening housing crisis."

Deeply disturbing use of word "indigenous" by Margaret Hodge

I am not entirely sure why Margaret Hodge is making controversial remarks about housing and immigration. She is Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry, not a Home Office minister. Of course, she is an MP for a constituency where this is a big issue, but even so, it seems strange that she is making such a statement.

The remarks attributed to her on Radio Two included the word "indigenous". Indeed, her article includes this passage:

We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants.

I am deeply disturbed that a mainstream politician is using the word "indigenous" in such a debate. It is part of a code used by the BNP. It basically means "white" to those who are racist. But there are those of many races, which are not generally white, whose families have been in this country for decades or even centuries.

The long history of immigration into this country

I have recently been spurred to research some of the history of immigration into this country. I found a superb timeline at the website of the Commission for Racial Equality.

The first thing this timeline reminded me of, is this: People often make a sweeping assumption that "British" people are "Anglo-Saxon". This is wrong for a whole host of reasons. One of those reasons is me, and millions like me - Celts. I was reminded that, in fact, the Celts started arriving here in 400 BC, whereas the Angles and Saxons didn't start arriving here until the best part of a millennium later, in 390 AD. So yaboo sucks to you Saxon lot!

The time line also highlights how long ago many ethnic groups starting arriving on our shores:

250AD - First black people arrived here as part of the Roman legionaires

1507 - There was a black trumpeter at the court of Henry VII

1510 - People from the Punjab arrived here

1555 - More substantial numbers of Black people arrived as slaves from Africa

1650 - Chinese and West African "Lascars" arrive

1685 - Thousands of Huguenots fled here

1770s - 20,000 Black people were living in London at the end of the 1700s plus another 4,000 in the rest of the country.

1820 - Chinese communities take root

1840 - Substantial numbers of skilled Indian workers arrive plus those from Italy and Southern Europe

1890 - "Chinatown" established in London

1916 - Carribeans arrive to aid the war work

1940 - RAF have shortage of pilots. Pilots from the Carribean, South Africa, India and Eastern Europe (especially from Poland and Czechoslovakia) arrive.

The not-very-changing face of Britain

There was a fascinating piece on BBC1's Breakfast this morning. It was called "The Changing Face of Britain" with Mark Easton, the BBC's Home Affairs editor.

They showed a composite picture representing the "face of Britain" in the 1960s. It was a white bloke. This was based on extensive research based on population figures.

As we all breathed in deeply, they then showed the composite "face of Britain" today. It was....er...another white bloke. It fact, this 2007 white bloke looked almost identical to the 1960 white bloke. Mark Easton helpfully pointed out that the 2007 bloke's jaw was a bit bigger.

Mark pointed out that only 7 out of every 100 people in this country are from an ethnic community. He said that most people don't encounter people from ethnic communities in their everyday life. A large majority of ethnic people are concentrated in the cities, particularly London where they make up 40% of the population.

It was also interesting to hear from him that most immigration into this country is from Ireland. I was not aware of this. I looked for some details about this on the web. I did find this statement at the Office of National Statistics:

In 1997 there were over 440 thousand Irish nationals living in the United Kingdom, more than the total of all the other European Union (EU) nationals living here. Of those UK nationals living in other EU countries, about a third were living in Germany, with the Irish Republic being the next most common country.

I have heard some rather extreme right-wing people complaining about Poles coming to this country. Poland is of course in the EU. The 443,000 Irish people (oldish figures - 1997) here dwarf the amount of Poles recently arrived (49,000 in 2005).

Also, if you take Ireland out of the equation, more or less the same amount of UK citizens live elsewhere in the EU as citizens of other EU countries live here - 322,000 versus 362,000 for 1997, which is the most recent year for which I can find figures.

I did find this piece in The Times which said that in 2005 "68,000 people from the 'Old Commonwealth' - Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa - came to Britain intending to stay for at least a year..." That's quite a large chunk of our annual immigration which seems to get ignored.