The truth about migrants and crime

An interesting if wholly unsurprising report from the Police confirms that migrants to the UK from eastern Europe are not responsible for waves of crime.

As you would expect, levels of crime from eastern European migrants are in line with the rate of crime of the general population.

You can read in more detail about the report on the Guardian and Telegraph websites.

Of course there is one set of people who will be astonished by this news, Daily Mail readers. While researching this blog I couldn’t find a mention of the report on the Daily Mail’s website anywhere, a paper that has previously claimed that eastern European migrants are responsible for one in 10 crimes.

But I wanted to be sure so searched through the Daily Mail's site via Google for mentions of “Immigrants” (you can do it like this). There are thousands upon thousands of hits, none of them mentioning that migrants are in no way responsible for waves of crimes!

Edit on April 17:

It seems the Mail were just a little slow on the uptake. Instead of a screaming front page headline the story is dumped on page 12 of Thursday's paper. Incredibly, and without a hint of irony, James Slack's analysis piece asked, "Who claimed there was a migrant crimewave in the first place?"

And if you think that's astonishing, how about the Express who defied logic and all the evidence to the contrary by plastering Thursday's front page with "IMMIGRANTS BRING MORE CRIME" before going on to quote the report which said, "the evidence does not support theories of a large-scale crime wave generated through migration."

In between the bluster, the blind prejudice and underlying hatred, the Express did find one rise in crime which featured migrants in the report. It was a "huge surge in the exploitation of migrants."

In praise of the Western Morning News

For a newspaper in the Daily Mail group and which regularly allows UKIP MEPs and other Europhobes free reign in its letters page, the Western Morning News editorial yesterday was an extraordinarily well-argued comment in favour of the Reform Treaty. There was a precise explanation and evaluation of what exactly the treaty contains, a rebuttal of the myths that have prospered and an articulate attack on a local Tory MEP heading for the House of Commons.

The editorial asked: "If the Reform Treaty is going to crush our sovereignty so much, why is it that an ambitious politician like the South West Conservative MEP Neil Parrish is bidding for a Westminster seat even though the powers of MEPs are going to be increased?"

They then quote an answer from the man himself: "People keep asking me why I want to make the leap to Westminster. I tell them I will sincerely miss serving the South West in the European Parliament but ultimately for anyone who loves political service, the Commons is the place to be." Maybe – but if so, this hardly tallies with the line that Westminster is being reduced to a parish council!

The Guardian chose the same day to take a lighthearted look at the variety of myths propagated since the arrival of EU migrants from eastern European countries. EU migrants have been blamed for the quality of service in restaurants, a shortage of £50 notes and even accused of eating swans and poaching carp! It also points out how statistics are used to denigrate migrants, by never bothering to explain that things like a rise in foreign cars involved in accidents is entirely logical because there are now more foreign cars on the road.

As if to prove certain attitudes towards migrants the Daily Telegraph’s Village Britain series concluded with the headline "Village Britain: Half the population is foreign". The article actually says that 10 per cent of the population of Boston are migrants, with the "half" claim coming from someone pruning flowers in an entirely different village! The article goes on to acknowledge that migrant labour hasn’t taken jobs from local people, has helped the area boom and that there is a history of migrant labour in the area (Irish migrants and unemployed miners have done the work in the past). So, why then the sensationalist headline?

It's always interesting to see how newspapers are able to conjure vastly different headlines and stories from the same facts. One of the issues that gets the most hyperbolic reaction in the press is immigration. The Sun, Daily Mail and Express frequently talk of "floods" or "stampedes" of immigrants.

The release last week of Home Office statistics on the number of economic migrants from Bulgaria and Romania, who joined the EU at the start of 2007, needless to say, provoked a series of blustering headlines from right-wing tabloids none of whom can agree on the figures.

The Express ran with "92,000 east Europeans milk our benefits" adding that a "flood" of migrants had left taxpayers with a £102 million bill. The paper claimed that more than 4,500 "Eastern Europeans" were arriving in the UK. However, the Mail (which also cited "official figures") contended that the true figure was 120 Romanian and Bulgarian per day (fewer than 1,000 per week).

Meanwhile, the Guardian pointed out that "only 8,000 Romanian and Bulgarian migrants came to work in Britain the first three months after their countries joined the EU", noting that this figure was far lower than the claim made by certain tabloids that 300,000 would enter the UK. Indeed, the Scotsman continued in a similar vein, stating that "fewer than 200 migrants from Romania and Bulgaria applied for national insurance numbers to work in Scotland".

I'm sure I am not the only one to be slightly bemused by the disparity between these figures. Certainly, you could be forgiven for thinking that some sections of the right-wing press are fiddling the figures to fit their distortions about immigration levels.

Recent comments by Margaret Hodge have caused quite a stir! Margaret called for priority to be given to established British families over economic migrants for council housing claiming that, “We prioritise the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement others feel they have, 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.”

This is actually not true, as Ken Livingstone points out in an excellent rebuttal to Margaret’s claims in his article in Tribune. He points out the numerous mistakes she makes, a summary of which is below:

“Hodge is wrong. Her local council, Barking and Dagenham, was forced to point out that anyone entering the borough from the new eastern European states has to be a resident in the borough for 12 months and have been in full-time employment for 12 months before they can even apply to be placed on the council's housing register, and even then priority housing is allocated on need and the length of time on the waiting list. And non-European Union "economic migrants" don't enjoy even the most basic rights to housing. Legislation denies them any recourse to public funds for at least four years after their arrival in Britain.”

“EU accession state nationals do have certain rights - enshrined in EU treaties - but almost none are eligible for priority housing as they are nearly always in work. Only one in 800 local authority lettings are made to this group nationally.”

“Far from it being the case that immigrants are jumping the housing queue, the allocation policies for scarce affordable housing in London, together with the harsh realities of our national immigration policy, make it exceptionally difficult for immigrants to get housing, even if they face acute needs […] The real issue is that we need a lot more affordable housing.”

The BBC website carries a fascinating article on the Spanish municipal elections, which reveals the extent local politics is now being influenced by Brits and other EU immigrants.

The European Union grants foreign nationals living in another member state the right to vote and stand in local and European elections and with over 300,000 EU citizens already registered to vote in Spain, mostly in the south of the country, plenty of Brits are putting themselves forward as candidates.

Many are standing for small independent parties in the municipality of San Fulgencio, with some parties’ lists of candidates dominated by non-Spaniards, most of them British.

I was amused to read that one party, who are fielding 11 migrants in their list of 16 candidates, claims it has the answer to “massive, uncontrolled immigration”.

Other parties representing EU migrants are campaigning for bilingual schools (English and Spanish) and more accountability around planning issues, which appears to be one of the main catalysts behind this rise in participation.

The article begs some interesting questions.

What exactly would Britain make of parties created to specifically represent the interests of migrants? I can’t imagine the Mail or Express being sympathetic to a Polish Independent campaigning for bilingual schools!

We are also repeatedly told how more and more people in the UK are feeling disfranchised from politics but the reverse appears to be happening out in Spain. Why are people apparently less willing to campaign for change in their home country than when they move abroad? Is it perhaps because their interest are in fact represented and defended in Britain?

It’s also worth noting that the article only ever refers to expats and never migrants or immigrants. This implies there is some sort of difference, when clearly there isn’t.

How well the non-Spanish candidates will do remains to be seen but it will be interesting to see if the participation of EU-migrants in another country’s politics is replicated in Britain in the future.

The recent enlargement of the European Union has seen a re-emergence of the debate on migration, and the effect on our economy. It's a highly emotive issue to many people, but I am pleased that, amidst the usual scaremongering by the right-wing press, there has been some sound reporting of the facts by the more responsible end of the British press.

Two reports I especially wanted to highlight:

The Independent:

"The feared flood of workers from Bulgaria and Romania failed to materialise at Heathrow airport yesterday as citizens of the European Union’s two newest member states appeared to prefer to stay at home. Flights arriving at terminal one from Bucharest yesterday carried visitors from the Indian sub continent and crestfallen representatives of certain newspapers who had been sent to the Romanian capital to chronicle the expected influx, only to find no takers. As one photographer for a red-top newspaper put it: “Complete waste of time. No one wanted to fly. We even offered to help with the fare”.

Of course, this did not deter the red tops who went ahead and printed stories of mass migration anyway.

The second was a speech, reported in the Times, given by leading economist David Blanchflower, (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2532521,00.html). Professor Blanchflower highlights how migrant workers have not generally taken jobs from British people, have helped keep the economy stable and that there is no evidence to support suggestions that Eastern European workers are keeping wages artificially low.

Of course, many people will have a view of whether immigration is a good thing or otherwise, and they’re entitled to it, but when one of London’s most respected economists, presenting facts and figures, disagrees with the views of a red top journalist, I know who I think is more credible!

Over the past couple of months readers of this blog will have realised that immigration has becoming an increasingly discussed issue, and one that also affects a large amount of people.

Tonight's episode of Inside Out (a current affairs programme on the BBC) is an immigration special and should be well worth watching for anyone who has previously taken an interest in the subject.

You can catch it from 1930 to 2000 (GMT) on BBC1.

When the BBC's Inside Out webpage is updated you will be able to learn more about the show by clicking here

The TUC hosted an information evening for migrant workers in Hull’s Trade Union Studies Centre last night, with the emphasis on helping the eastern-European community understand their rights better.

Humberside, and Hull in particular, has been a popular destination for migrant workers because it is one of the main centres of food production in the country.

Along with some traditional Polish food there was advice on housing, joining a union and improving English skills.

And is quite clear is just how crucial language skills are, with almost all of the problems migrants have faced exacerbated by a lack of English.

Without good English there are obvious implications for health and safety while at work, but better language skills help integration, and mean people understand their rights and are able to better communicate problems they have to the authorities – meaning far less exploitation.

Bearing this in mind, East Riding College deserves congratualtions for its Get On At Work programme, which offers literacy, numeracy and langauge programmes. Ever since Hull became a popular destination for migrants they have been providing a variety of English lessons, many at the request of the employers themselves.

An additional bonus from these lessons is that some employers are seeing the benefits a commitment to adult education can have and are now offering all their workers the chance to learn and gain qualifications at work.

Saturday’s European Policy Forum in Sheffield was a great success with over 100 people in attendance and everything from the Tinsley towers to climate change in Kenya discussed.

The forum gives myself and my colleague Linda McAvan MEP the chance to report back about our work in the Parliament and what we achieved over the last year.

Two other themes of this year’s event were multiculturalism and migration with Dutch MEP Jan Marinus Wiersma speaking about the former and TUC Regional Secretary Bill Adams talking about the latter.

Like the UK, Holland is in a debate about multiculturalism, which became highly charged following the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a religious fundamentalist, and Jan Marinus stressed how dangerous the current, narrow, media-spun view of Islam is. Yet, positive role models, like PSV Eindhoven football player Ismaïl Aissati are helping Holland understand and talk about Islam away from the stereotypes that so normally abound.

The afternoon then focused on migration with Linda's researcher, Chris Read, offering a plethora of statistics which gave an illuminating portratit of the current situation in the UK.

Of the eastern-European migrants that have come to the UK, 82 per cent are aged between 18 and 34 with 93 per cent arriving with no dependents. The most common statistic banded about by the media is that there is thought to be 600,000 migrants from eastern-European EU countries in the UK but one example of how statistics can be misleading is the fact that those leaving are not even counted!

Most worrying though is the fact that 78 per cent only earn between £4.50 (which is of course well below the minimum wage) and £5.99 an hour.

Bill Adams then concentrated on the problems some eastern-European immigrants have suffered and left much of the room shocked at the levels of exploitation by unscrupulous employers occurring in this country.

One of many horror stories featured an agency which charged so much money for signing-on fees, administration and rent (for a bed in a room with up to eight others) that some workers were left with a big fat zero in their pay packet. Not wanting to miss another insidious trick the agency then offered the exploited workers loans with exorbitant interest rates. Other agencies have been telling workers that joining a trade union is illegal.

As I have mentioned before on the blog the trade unions are aware of the problems and have taken the lead to inform migrants and British workers about their rights.

But these incidents also show why we need to agree on the proposed EU Temporary Agency Directive, which has been held up for some time by deadlock between governments in the EU Council of Ministers. It's high time for movement on this issue!

“Babies for sale, sex slaves, bribery, mob killings, drug factories, organised crime ... now Romanian and Bulgarian mafias have Britain in their sights.”

Just another example of the calm measured tones the right-wing tabloids have been using to slur Romania and Bulgaria ahead of their accession to the EU next January.

Of course what makes this particular piece all the more galling is that it was in the Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International.

In September I blogged about another News International newspaper, The News of the World, and how three of their journalists had actively sought out Bulgarian prostitutes willing to travel to the UK so they could pen another shock horror story about the EU’s two newest members.

So remember, come January, if any of these terrible things the Sun so gleefully promises us do turn up in the UK it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that journalists from News International have invited them here!

The government will this week announce its decision on whether to allow Bulgarians and Romanians the right to seek employment in the UK as of 1 January, the day of their accession to the EU, or whether to postpone the right for a transitional period.

We all know that more people than expected came to Britain when 10 other countries joined the EU two years ago. But in the main, this has been a positive experience. They have filled gaps in our job market, paid far more tax than they have received benefits, and given an extra boost to our economy.

Of course, there have been some problems too. A few struggle with their English which can obviously cause safety problems while large numbers of young men in particular locations can cause difficulties. Although most have not brought families, those that have tend to congregate in the same areas and are inclined to use the same (normally catholic) schools.

Unfortunately there have also been cases of unscrupulous employers who have exploited migrants by pressuring them to accept poor conditions and low wages. But as I have said recently on the blog, this is something the trade unions have been quick to realise. The TUC’s guide to employment rights for migrant workers is particularly useful and is available in several languages. It also puts the traditional workforce and new arrivals on the same side, defending their common rights.

In these circumstances, it would be a pity if the government were to cave in to the tabloid clamour and postpone the access of Romanians and Bulgarians to the UK labour market. Access has proven to bring considerably more benefits than disadvantages. A (relatively) small extension to two more countries won't change that equation.

But above all, the consequences of restricting access should be thought through. It would not stop Romanians and Bulgarians coming to Britain - they have that right anyway. It would simply stop them taking official employment. The likelihood is that many will take unofficial employment, unregistered, unregulated and unprotected. They will be wide open to abuse and exploitation. They will not contribute taxes. Any media kudos gained in the short term will quickly be lost when the press inevitably exposes illegal workers from Bulgaria and Romania. Far better that they be officially registered. It would minimise the problems and maximise the benefits.

In reality, this is not so much a Home Office matter as one for the DTI, the Dept of Work & Pensions and not to mention the Foreign Office for its EU repercussions. In other words the government must take a collective decision and not be bounced.

Previously, on my blog (here and here to be exact) I have mentioned a couple of examples of journalists or newspapers caught in the act of fabricating totally untrue stories intended to make the EU look bad.

The latest paper caught out is the Daily Mail. Not so long ago they pictured a queue outside the British visa office in Sofia, Bulgaria. At the time I can remember thinking that it was a pretty short queue, certainly a lot shorter than anything you would expect to find at the British passport office, or at any pub in the country on a Friday. However, with trademark scaremongering the intrepid Mail journalists managed to whip up a front page story out of it.

Now though, Peter Preston, writing for the Guardian, reveals the picture was taken the day after a UK bank holiday, meaning the office was processing twice as many visas than on an ordinary day. So despite the queue already being pretty small, had the picture represented a normal day there will probably been fewer than ten people applying for a visa, which isn’t really worthy of an inch in a newspaper let alone a front page.

Preston also wonders why we aren’t welcoming Bulgaria and Romania with open arms. After all, less than 20 years ago they remained communist states devoid of democracy. Had someone said in 1986 these staunchly communist states – Romania run by Ceauşescu and Bulgaria a loyal Soviet satellite state – would be embracing democracy, freedom and working together with their western European neighbours it would have been cause for celebration.

As I mentioned in my blog in Lithuania, some times it is easy to forget just what the EU represents in terms of democracy, stability and prosperity to nations that have been less fortunate than the UK.

One of the main concerns about the migration of EU Citizens from the eight new eastern European countries is the potential for exploitation by unscrupulous employers, which is why it so good to see the UK ’s unions adapting quickly to deal with this new challenge.

This week’s Tribune reveals that my union, the GMB, has opened a branch in Southampton dedicated to migrant workers, with the city’s Polish community making up the large majority of its members. The initiative intends to help migrants improve their English, understand their rights, and build their confidence and skills. By helping migrant workers understand their rights British workers are also protected from unfair competition

The T&G also led the campaign for gangmaster legislation, which will protect casual workers, when it is introduced later this month.

The TUC have also released a guide to employment rights in Europe which you can read by clicking here (pdf). More information is available, in a variety of languages, on the special migration page of the TUC’s website, which you can access here.

The immigration debate shows no sign of abating with even the Murdoch papers taking up wildly differing positions on the topic.

The Sun gives the Tories plenty of space to call for restrictions on EU immigrants, particularly if Romania and Bulgaria join in 2007, accompanied (at least online) by a picture of an apparently homeless EU migrant from one of the A-8 countries. This is a fine example of how the right-wing media works when discussing topics like immigration. To look at the picture you would think homelessness is an often-encountered problem for migrants who come to the UK. Yet,those who read the Sun from the day before will know that a mere 453 people out of 447,000 have been given homelessness assistance. So the picture is representative of 00.1% of the migrant population from the A-8 countries, or roughly one in every thousand! Predictably, the Sun fails to include this illuminating statistic alongside its emotive picture.

By contrast, the Times’ leader is stirringly positive about the benefits immigration has brought to the UK. It goes on to advocate extending the Workers Registration Scheme to Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants, as it has been such a success.

The Telegraphs’ David Rennie once again hits the nail on the head when discussing the issue on his blog. He points out that once Romania and Bulgaria join the EU, their citizens, like every other EU citizen, will be free to travel to whichever EU country they like.

What Britain can do is limit the amount of migrants that join the Workers Registration Scheme. As Rennie points out, if the government opts to do this it will simply encourage Romanians and Bulgarians to come here, as is there right, but stay to work illegally.

A black market in labour would encourage wages below the minimum wage and exploitation, something which the Workers Registration Scheme has helped immigrants largely avoid, as well as helping British workers avoid unfair competition.

The issue of immigration is dominating the front pages of the papers after government statistics revealed that 447,000 EU immigrants from former eastern bloc countries have come to live and work in the UK since 2004.

For the right-leaning media this number alone is enough to spark a plethora of “we’re full up” style stories and columns ahead of the expected accession of Bulgaria and Romania in January 2007.

Yet every other single statistic released about the Workers Registration Scheme demonstrates just how successful the immigration of such a large number of fellow EU citizens has been for the UK.

One of the most interesting was on Newsnight, where it was revealed that EU immigrants from former communist countries (known as the Accession Eight or A-8) currently make the biggest net contributions to the Treasury.

Over 80 per cent of A-8 immigrants are aged between 18 and 34. They are already educated and trained at no cost to Britain and almost all are healthy and working. This means that they are paying income tax, council tax, national insurance and VAT while claiming almost no money back from the government.

Indeed, the statistics (intriguingly printed by the Sun, though not in percentages) show, that out of 447,000 immigrants just 193 people have been awarded income support (0.04%), 574 people (after working for at least a year before losing their jobs) have been accepted for Job Seeker’s Allowance (0.1%), 110 have been given council houses (0.02%) and 453 awarded homelessness assistance (0.1%).Child benefit was awarded to 27,280 claimants but even this works out at a measly 6.1 per cent.

Of equal important is the amount of money being ploughed into local economies. Wages are not only being spent on obvious things such as rent and food but they are also providing welcome boosts to local infrastructures like public amenities and public transport.

Many of those calling for limits on immigration often argue that Britain’s resources simply can’t cope with the number of immigrants arriving. It is a given that immigrants will sometimes need the NHS, and the seven per cent who have brought their children here will use our schools, but all the evidence suggests that immigration will actually help improve public services, as their contributions will be greater than their demands.

With many of the A-8 immigrants expected to return home before they retire, the tax contributions they are making now and in the future will also help pay for our pensions.

I’m sure I am not the only one who can remember doom-laden leaders from the right-wing papers claiming that immigrants from new EU countries would travel to Britain to exploit the benefits system.

And the same newspapers are now rehashing the same old stories to print similarly inflammatory articles on the imminent arrival of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania, should their accession go ahead in 2007, and should they be granted equivalent access.

The right has long called for a serious debate on immigration and now it is here all they can do is point to one big number, whilst ignoring the startling facts that prove immigration of EU citizens to the UK has been a resounding success.

“Immigrants boost the economy”, is a line from which newspaper’s editorial today?

How many of you guessed the Sun?

Admittedly the "Sun Says" column does go on to complain about the odd person allegedly dodging taxes or working for less than the minimum wage (which is surely the employer’s fault) but is it a sign that Rebecca Wade’s paper is prepared to start embracing immigration?

Maybe not. Turn to page 11 and the main headline of John Gaunt’s (or “Gaunty” as he urges us to call him) column is “Sorry: Fully Up”.

He writes: “Britain is full and it’s time to secure our borders and halt all immigration until we know exactly how many people are living here and where they’ve come from.”

Gaunt, sorry “Gaunty”, is particularly critical of Britain’s decision to allow workers from the EU’s newest member states to work here. To be fair, he also acknowledged that immigration does have its advantages but he then goes on to suggest we should follow France and Germany by now barring EU citizens from eastern Europe from working here.

He should argue the reverse - that France and Germany should lift now their temporary restrictions. Had they and the rest of the EU followed the example of Britain, Ireland and Sweden – the three countries which originally took down their labour barriers – then there would have been a far more even distribution of job-seeking Poles and others in the first place.

In fact, three more countries are now lifting their restrictions, and all Member States have agreed to do so within the next few years. To advocate that we should renege on our commitments and start a stampede in the opposite direction is either ill-informed or wilfully malicious.

Anyway, other than the sheer numbers of immigrants the right-wing newspapers have had very little to complain about - the expansion of the EU has been a success. People have arrived, found jobs, started businesses, made friends, gone to school and contributed significantly to their local economies.

Perhaps an even more significant contribution being made is to Britain’s perceptions of migrants. The EU’s freedom of movement rules allow (afer a transitional period) people from any member state to work in any other member state. This has usually promoted tolerance, understanding and started eroding xenophobia.

There is still much to do but when a Sun editorial gives a nod of approval, however reticently, to freedom of movement in the EU there is hope yet.

It is rewarding to see that the enlargement of the European Union is already paying dividends for new member states as well as our own country.

Two years since eight east European countries, and Malta and Cyprus, joined the EU the European Commission has released a report which details the economic benefits expansion has brought.

Britain’s decision to open its labour market to these new states was met with predictable tabloid scare stories promising waves of immigration but of course this has not been the case.

Instead we, along with Ireland and Sweden – the only other countries to lift labour restrictions – have reaped the benefits and have enjoyed a far stronger employment record than the countries yet to welcome workers from the east.

Many of the workers that have arrived in this country have been equipped with the skills to fill roles in which we have a shortage, an increase in tradesmen such as plumbers has proved particularly popular.

Encouraged by the success of the past two years Greece, Finland, Portugal and Spain have followed in our footsteps and will now drop their restrictions on workers from the east.

Germany, France, Italy and Austria remain reluctant to open up their labour markets but the commission’s report will hopefully begin convincing them of the positive aspects of doing so.

It was also pleasing to see that an EU success story was reported in our press. The Financial Times’ leader was particularly glowing in its coverage of the commission’s report while the Times stressed the importance of all EU nations accepting workers from the new member states.

When we welcomed 10 new European countries into the EU last year, there was much debate among the EU ‘old 15’ over whether they should open up their labour markets to workers from the new member states. Under EU rules, all citizens are free to live and work in any European country, but several governments agreed temporary restrictions, fearing that labour markets would not be able to cope with the influx of new workers.

These genuine – although misguided – concerns were, of course, compounded by the xenophobic press in the UK. A series of “rancid hate campaigns” (in the words of Denis McShane) culminated in the Daily Express screaming, “The Roma gypsies of Eastern Europe are heading to Britain to leech on us. We do not want them here”. One newspaper even invented a story about every plane from eastern Europe being full of migrants ready to steal our jobs — a claim that was later revealed to be an abject lie, and the paper in question was forced to issue an apology.

In the end, three countries — Britain, Ireland and Sweden — decided not to impose restrictions on migrant workers. This was a brave move, and according to a new report out this week, it has paid off. Not only have we patently not been flooded by migrant workers, but the European Commission’s investigation into the economic effects of workers from the new member states concluded the following:

Countries that have opened their labour markets fully are ‘upbeat’ about it

Migration flows have had a ‘positive effect’ on Europe’s economy

The flow of workers has not been big enough to swamp labour markets

The barriers erected by most of the older EU states have not kept workers out

Restrictions may lead to more ‘undeclared work’ by migrants

The new workers fill gaps in labour markets, particularly in construction and catering

In the light of this new evidence, the Tories hurriedly performed a sharp U-turn and condemned the “protectionist” instincts of countries like Germany and Austria – even though, nine months ago, they were urging Tony Blair to adopt those very same instincts.

The BBC has just posted a very interesting set of data about migration in the UK.

Migration is "good for everybody"!