| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“We conclude that, although immigration of people to fill low-paid positions may have limited...impact in the short-term, it is a highly negative strategy for the longer-term as it lowers productivity, will probably lower GDP per head and will lead to a fiscal deficit as the workers are joined by more dependants...In addition it will add to the strains on the country’s environment, infrastructure and public services.”
I now turn to the kernel of the issue: the flawed system for estimating the EU migrant population entering the United Kingdom, and for estimating where those people are settled in residence, even if only for a very short period. To its credit, the Office for National Statistics has conceded those weaknesses. Karen Dunnell, the national statistician, wrote in May 2006:
“There is now broad agreement that available estimates of migrant numbers are inadequate for managing the economy, policies and services.”
In the same month, the chairman of the Statistics Commission, Professor David Rhind, wrote:
“It is clear to us that this is not a problem that can simply be left at the door of the ONS...The development of policy on immigration, monitoring the impact of current policies, and the provision of services targeted at immigrant communities may all be adversely affected by weak data.”
It would not be prudent to rehearse all the arguments on analysing population statistics that have been made so powerfully by local officers and elected members of local authorities, and Members of the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), who raised the matter in a Westminster Hall debate on 1 November last year. I pay tribute to Slough borough council for the enormous amount of work that it has done in analysing ONS population data, the under-counting of the migrant population in the borough, and the financial implications for local taxpayers and service users in its report, published in July 2006, entitled “There’s no accounting for some people”.
In a nutshell, and before I move on to discuss Peterborough specifically, methodologies urgently need revision, as the Minister will know. The ONS uses sub-national population projections to predict the population for each year up to 25 years into the future. The sub-national population projection for each year is calculated by ageing the population of the previous year. That is done by applying local fertility and mortality rates to calculate the projected number of births and deaths. The figure is adjusted for migration into and out of the area. Crucially, the population figures for the financial year 2007-08 use the 2003 mid-year population estimates as a starting point, but those figures are seriously flawed as the mid-2003 statistics take no account of the huge increase in inward migration following the accession of the A8 countries in May 2004; and if the original population figure or the projections are wrong, the Government’s move to multi-year financial settlements—a move that is welcome to local authorities in many other respects—will seriously compound the original error.
That brings me to my constituency of Peterborough. It has a long history of welcoming and embracing newcomers, whether they are Pakistani, Italian, Irish or Portuguese. My constituents and I admire folk who want to make a new life for themselves and their families, and who are prepared to work hard and take part in—and become part of—the community. However, they also have a strong sense of fair play and they believe that the Government have a responsibility and duty to make provision for the wide-ranging ramifications of their policies.
Peterborough is a regional centre for food processing and packaging, horticulture and agriculture, and it has therefore attracted a low-wage and low-skill work force. However, although the literal and figurative fruits of that work force’s labour are generated in neighbouring areas, the work force uses the services of Peterborough city council and other agencies. Ministers will know that almost 8,000 EU migrants have settled in the Peterborough area since May 2004. That is the largest number for any area in the eastern region—and that is based on flawed figures. Between 2002 and 2005, no fewer than 2,185 asylum seekers were dispersed to the city under the auspices of the National Asylum Support Service, but that was done without proper consultation with local people and, it would seem, without any accountability to this House. There was certainly no accountability to the elected representatives of Peterborough city council and others. That is Peterborough’s burden, borne with good grace and forbearance. However, there is only so much hospitality that can be proffered.
Mr. Vara: Does my hon. Friend agree that if migrant communities are encouraged to go to a specific area by central Government, who fail to provide the necessary financial back-up, there is unnecessary resentment among the host community, which sometimes leads to disastrous consequences for harmonious race relations in the medium to long term?
Mr. Jackson: The House will know that my hon. Friend is an assiduous representative of the neighbouring constituency. Indeed, we share the city of Peterborough, so he will know that we have been extraordinarily fortunate as we have not been subject to the scourge of political extremism under the colours of the British National party and others who seek to stir up problems over community cohesion and racial tension. We have not gone the way of Burnley, Oldham, Bradford and other places, so he has made a telling point.
That burden is borne by my constituents. The matter may be unimportant to residents of Greater London, who may not have the same cultural affinity with the place where they live as Peterborians do. Londoners may move to another part of London or take another job, so they do not have that sense of loyalty to an area, and they certainly do not identify with a particular place. However, people in Peterborough, particularly long-term residents, identify strongly with the place where they live. They sometimes tell me that they regret what they regard as the degradation of their locality. That is not the same thing as scapegoating newcomers to the city, and they have every right to make their concerns known to their elected representatives on the city council and to their Member of Parliament.
The ONS mid-year population estimate for the city of Peterborough for 2006 is 161,000—up from 158,800 in 2003, which is a projected 1 per cent. rise. It is as if the 8,000 EU migrant workers, together with their children and adult dependants, did not exist. Because the revenue support grant awarded by the Treasury through the Department for Communities and Local Government to Peterborough city council is so dependent on accurate population statistics, the efficacy and rigour, or otherwise, of the methodology is vital. Even the East of England regional assembly concedes that the number of EU migrants in the city may be as high as 16,000. If that is true, the indicative rise in population between 2003 and 2007 is likely to be in excess of 10 per cent., but the Government’s grant allocation is based on an increase of 3.7 per cent. between 2001 and 2007, leaving a cash shortfall of £3 million to £4 million, which is a huge amount for a medium-sized unitary authority with a revenue budget in the current financial year of £217 million. When the Lithuanian ambassador, Mr. Vygaudas UĊĦackas, visited the city before Christmas, he conceded that 1,200 Lithuanians and their families were living in Peterborough, and they are certainly not the largest national group to have come to Peterborough and the eastern region
I want to touch briefly on the practical, everyday ramifications of migration, which has proceeded with breathtaking speed in just three years, bringing unprecedented numbers. The impact has been experienced in particular in the New England and Millfield areas of the city, particularly the North, Central and Park wards. Housing is the biggest problem. Since 2004, the rules on houses in multiple
occupation have been liberalised, so only larger HMOs are subject to regular inspection. We must look again at the Housing Act 2004 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The biggest problem in the city stems from HMOs, and particularly from overcrowding.
It is not uncommon for 10 or a dozen young men to live in one small terraced house in these areas, sometimes in desperate conditions and prey to Rachmanite landlords. That can cause problems with refuse collection and rodent infestation, as well as health and safety issues and neighbour disputes. A Cambridgeshire constabulary report published last year entitled “Policing Peterborough” drew attention to issues such as summary eviction, violence and sexual assault against women in HMOs, petty robbery and disputes within households, dangerous fire safety issues and neighbourhood tension to do with lifestyle and noise.
Let me share an experience that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire had on a visit last October with the regulatory authorities. We visited a restaurant in the Central ward, where a hot-bunking system was operating in the basement: half a dozen or more bunks in a tiny room were set aside for migrant workers. It was a pitiful sight: dirty, small, unpleasant bunks with rosaries and candles. They were a disgrace to modern society, and to all of us who were elected in the name of the people to represent our constituents in this House. However, that is what is happening in Peterborough, and in many other parts of the country as well.
The chair of the Labour party, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), has correctly—and bravely, in my opinion—drawn attention to some of the pressures on community cohesion which arise, including a feeling of resentment and injustice, particularly among host communities, when immigration and migration are not managed coherently and with equanimity. The Audit Commission report of January 2007, “Crossing Borders”, recognised officially community tensions centring on issues including street drinking, parking disputes and antisocial behaviour. Likewise, even the Minister for Immigration and Asylum was quoted in The Daily Telegraph in April this year as having said:
“Here are a set of changes which...have deeply unsettled the country”.
On housing, it is worth mentioning that the ONS mid-2005 dwelling stock estimate for the three wards of Park, Central and North showed that there has been no increase in housing stock in the North ward in the last six years and only a 1 per cent. increase in Park and Central wards. Overcrowding is a natural consequence of there being too few properties and a huge rise in population. I should also point out to the Minister that more than 6,000 people are on the Peterborough city council housing waiting list.
This week, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government rightly bemoaned the lack of integration by some communities in the United Kingdom, and the increasing use of interpretation and translation services, the costs of which amount to more than £100 million on current estimates. Although her comments
are welcome, they come at least three years too late. In the last financial year, Peterborough city council spent £121,000 on that area of work and Cambridgeshire constabulary spent £800,000 on the same part of its budget, including the specialist “language line” facility. Nationally, more than £21 million has been spent by police forces on translation and interpretation. We have not even taken into account the costs of this area of work in respect of the Courts Service, local NHS trusts and other agencies such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Policing has become a more challenging and difficult undertaking in Peterborough. While the vast majority of newcomers are decent and law abiding, it is indisputable that their influx—I use that word although I know it causes some consternation—has had an impact on crime, particularly involving motor vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has drawn my attention to the issue of uninsured and untaxed cars, which is a problem in his constituency.
Drink-driving figures in the Peterborough area rose by 42 per cent. in 2005 and by 25 per cent. in 2006. Of course, as most of the EU migrants in the city are young men, they are also the victims of crime—often, the perpetrators are from other ethnic or cultural groups—be they Portuguese, Pakistani or others. The primary care trust reports significant pressures on certain GP practices in the city—I have seen evidence of that myself at the Thistlemoor road practice in New England, and at the Millfield practice—on the accident and emergency department at Peterborough district hospital, and on maternity services.
Similarly, schools such as Fulbridge junior school, in Keeton road, Peterborough—its head, Iain Erskine, has shown great leadership—Beeches primary school, Queen’s Drive infants school, which is just round the corner from where I live, and Gladstone primary school are having to deal with severe pressures in educating young children new to the United Kingdom and to the area, with varied cultural norms, whose first language is not English. Sixty immigrant children were enrolled just last September at Fulbridge junior school—fully 10 per cent. of the entire school roll. The resource implications are a significant challenge to both the school and the local education authority. The ethnic minority achievement grant available from the Department for Education and Skills, although welcome, simply fails to keep pace with the increase in numbers.
I want to dwell on another important issue that is serving to strain the previously harmonious nature of community relations in Peterborough: the economic impact, especially on the labour market—particularly the low-wage, low-skill sector—of such a geographically concentrated and numerous new migrant work force. At a recent conference addressing the impact of migrant workers on the Scottish economy, the deputy director of CBI Scotland said:
“We cannot fall into the trap of thinking that immigration is the sole solution to the skills problems we face. It is not an alternative to upskilling our indigenous workforce, nor should immigration be seen as an alternative to labour market policies that target those on incapacity and unemployment benefits and help them back to work. Developing the skills and abilities of the existing and future working population must be a priority.”
There is a consensus on this issue. Dave Moxham, deputy director of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, supported this position, saying that
“instead of migrant workers being targeted in low skill occupations, their qualifications should be properly accredited, their language skills improved and they should be encouraged to seek out better skilled occupations higher up the jobs ladder where there is a great deal of demand. Our concern is that employers use migrant workers because they pay minimum wage, with poor terms and conditions...We are looking to business to show social responsibility by employing indigenous workers in the lower skilled jobs and we are encouraged that the CBI is aware of that issue”.
There are big, well-known companies in the east midlands and the eastern region that are exploiting migrant workers and are happy to do so until they get caught.
We have certainly seen an impact in this sector in my constituency. Between 2001 and 2006, inexplicably, youth unemployment rose from 8 per cent. to 14.1 per cent. The number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance and incapacity benefit is rising month on month, and 1,500 people in the Peterborough constituency are now not in education, employment or training. That is happening in a local economy that is part of the Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth corridor, which is officially recognised by the ONS as one of the fastest growing areas in the whole of England and Wales.
Sadly, we see instances of unscrupulous employers exploiting migrant workers, physically mistreating them, depriving them of their rights and undercutting wages. That fuels those workers’ own resentment, which cannot be good, but the corollary is that it fuels the resentment of those whom they have displaced: the less well-educated and the less highly skilled in the host communities. That provides fertile ground for extremists and their apologists. As Professor Ted Cantle, who chaired the inquiry into the riots in the north of England in 2001, said last year:
“Community tensions are sometimes caused by the perception of competition between groups over resources...The Government needs to look with some urgency at funding areas appropriately where statistics are not keeping pace with what is happening on the ground.”
That is not happening in my constituency. Peterborough city council and other agencies and stakeholders are being made to pick up the tab for a policy over which they have no control, and to cope with pressures on local public service provision and strains on community cohesion. That is neither right nor fair on my constituents. It puts at risk all that we have achieved in our city since Councillor Charles Swift, then the Labour leader of the city council, proudly welcomed the Vietnamese boat people to Peterborough more than 25 years ago.
The city council is having to use scarce resources, via a service level agreement with Cambridgeshire county council, to prepare a similar case to that of Slough about the disparity between migrant population undercount and the revenue support grant funding. It is using national insurance registrations and data from the early years team. I hope that the work done by local authorities such as Barking and Dagenham, the City of Westminster, Telford and Wrekin, Slough and others will result in a complete review of the ONS methodology in that area, under the auspices of the improving migration statistics taskforce, which will report later this year. In addition,
the Greater Peterborough partnership has also asked for a study to examine what the population of the area is likely to look like in the longer term, so that it can plan effectively.
I have some suggestions for the Minister about changes in policy. We need a proper review of the methodology of the ONS in respect of the collection of migrant data. We need to consider such issues as house price increases, household size, GP registration, council tax receipts and, prosaic as it may seem, sewage flows. None of those issues is taken into account when the ONS considers population growth, especially in the migration hotspots. We also need to consider the general fertility rate in each local area to get a truer picture of the situation and be able to react with more alacrity to the change of circumstances.
Andrew Blake-Herbert, the strategic director of finance and property for Slough, has this to say about the area:
“Slough has a number of particular characteristics that make its population hard to count: it has a highly mobile population which is becoming more ethnically diverse; it is densely populated; its economy is strong and growing and its housing market is experiencing unprecedented demand.”
He could have been talking about Peterborough. We need an urgent review and financial audit of public service delivery in the migrant hotspots such as Luton, Breckland, Fenland and others, where the pressure on public services is greater.
We also need to consider the efficiency or otherwise of the workers registration scheme. The university of Surrey centre for research on nationality, ethnicity and multiculturalism—a well-respected institution—postulated last year that for various reasons, not least its bureaucratic nature, the undercount on that scheme is probably some 36 per cent. In summer last year, the official figure was 427,000, so the true figure was probably nearer 525,000—a huge difference.
We also need a points system based on contemporaneous economic data from a regional analysis. That is done in Australia and it cannot be beyond the wit of Government to consider what jobs are available and what skills and training are needed in each region of the UK and change the workers registration scheme accordingly through a points system for all 27 countries. I ask the Minister to make specific reference to that in her response.
I am proud of my constituency. It is the epitome of middle England. My constituents were told that mass migration brings in taxes and increases the national wealth. Not unreasonably, they want a fair share of that wealth. I record with sadness the fact that people constantly tell me, “Peterborough is not the city that we grew up in. It’s full of foreigners, and we’re moving out.”
I end with an anecdote reported in the Financial Times magazine of 12 May. The family of Councillor John Holdich has been in civic life in Peterborough for more than 50 years. He is a well-known figure, the cabinet member for housing, and he was approached by an elderly resident as he walked along a street in New England. His story goes:
“One little lady came up to me in the street. She looked like somebody out of “Last of the Summer Wine”. She said to me, “Do you speak English?” and I said, “Yes”. She said, “That makes two of us in the whole street.”
Peterborough has borne a burden for three years. It is time that the Government lived up to their rhetoric and helped the people whom I represent share that burden. My constituents deserve nothing less.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |