With youth unemployment topping the one million mark, some papers have chosen to contrast the struggles of some young people in the labour market with the increasing numbers of foreign workers in employment.

Both the Express and the Sun claimed that in the three months to September, the number of UK nationals in work had decreased by 280,000 from the previous year, while the number of non-British workers had increased by 147,000.

Most troubling, is the repetition of a common misconception by the media in the Express article, that is, mistaking the increase in the number of foreign nationals in work for an increase in new jobs going to foreigners. This is a problem we have reported many times before here at Full Fact but one which is still an issue, despite the ONS warning against this interpretation.

The statistical bulletin clearly states: " The estimates relate to the number of people in employment rather than the number of jobs. These statistics have sometimes been incorrectly interpreted as indicating the proportion of new jobs that are taken by foreign migrants." 

So, have they reported it correctly this time?

Analysis

The ONS Labour Market Statistics November Bulletin 2011 states that the number of non-UK nationals in employment in the three months to September was 2.56 million, up 147,000 from the same period last year. This was incorrectly reported by the Express as 12,000 'new jobs' a month, based on the average number of 12,250 non-UK nationals being employed every month, not the number of jobs, from the 147,000 figure.  

Conversely, the number of UK nationals was 26.6 million, down 280,000 from last year.

Nevertheless, despite the increase in the number of foreign nationals in employment, the rate of employment for the same group was unchanged from the previous year, at 68.3 per cent.

When looking at the rate of employment for non-UK born people, this has actually decreased in the last year by 0.5 per cent, at 67.3 per cent. The same 0.5 per cent decrease has occurred for UK born workers.

Once again, despite the decreasing or stagnating employment rate, the number of non-UK born employed has increased, at 4.08 million, up by 181,000 from last year. The Mail calculated a daily average from this, at 495 employed every day. Meanwhile, there were 25.08 million UK born people in work, down 311,000 from the year before.

When we contacted the ONS to discuss these apparently contradictory statistics of an increase in non-UK nationals and non-UK born people in employment compared to a stagnation or decrease in the rate of employment, they stressed the significance of population increase.

They explained that evidently the total population of non-UK born people has increased at a faster rate than the number of non-UK born people in employment. Similarly, they added, they have seen increases in the number of non-UK born people who are unemployed or economically inactive.

Both papers also reported a rise in the number of eastern Europeans in employment, up by 16 per cent, and in the number of Pakistani and Bangladeshis in employment, up by 35 per cent. Is this an accurate reflection of the statistics?

The ONS reported the number of eastern European nationals in employment had increased to 669,000 from 576,000 for the same three month period (Jul-Sep) the previous year, representing a 16 per cent rise.

The number of Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals in employment increased to 108,000 from 80,000, representing a 35 per cent rise. Despite the large rise, this group has a considerably lower level of employment than those from eastern Europe, and western Europe (547,000) for example.

Once again, when considering the actual rate of employment, for eastern European nationals, this had only increased by 0.2 per cent, while for Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals, it had increased by 3.1 per cent.

Conclusion

Although both papers reported the number of non-UK nationals in employment in Britain correctly, the Express incorrectly referred to the increase as the number of new jobs going to foreign nationals.

Full Fact have seen this misinterpretation again and again, and it is shocking that despite the ONS warning against this in their bulletin, papers are still making the same mistake.