“But the number of Eastern Europeans working grew by 25,000 over the same period.”

Analysis

Full Fact attempted to contact Mr Nelson, and although currently taking break, he informed us his figures actually came from an unpublished source that he was reluctant to reveal.

However Full Fact understands that the main difference between Mr Nelson’s figures and those published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) is that the published data includes people over 65 while Mr Nelson’s do not.

Given the difference between the datasets, a direct fact check of Mr Nelson’s claim is impossible.
Nevertheless a look at the published data sheds a different light on the figures presented in the News of the World.

Looking at the change between the most recent two quarters available, the published data seems to be broadly in line with the findings set out in the News of the World.

From October to December 2009 the number of people born in the eight Eastern European countries which joined the EU (A8) working in the UK was 481,000, which by January 2010 had risen by 27,000 to 508,000. Over the same period the number of UK-born workers in employment fell by 220,000.

However there are problems relying solely on this data. The ONS publication makes clear that the figures are not seasonably adjusted, so could be affected by the time of year the data is recorded.

This raises questions about comparisons between different quarters. Indeed Full Fact was told by the ONS they do not comment on quarterly comparisons of non-adjusted data “because it could potentially be distorted by seasonal movements”.

We were instead advised to consider annual comparisons between the same quarters of different years. Such an approach indicates a different trend to the one suggested by the Spectator Editor.

For the period January to March 2010 the number of UK nationals in employment was 25,039,000 down 244,000 from the same period the previous year.

But comparing employment levels for A8-born workers over the same period, rather than a rise, there was a fall of 13,000.

This means that from 2009 to 2010, the number of UK-born people in work fell by one per cent, while A8-born workers declined by 2.5 per cent.

Different perspectives

The other way of looking at the data is to consider employment rates rather than numbers. As Sarah Mulley, of the Institute for Public Policy Research explained to us: “Part of this is about population size, so it’s best to look at employment rates for a picture of how different groups are faring in the recession”

Looking either year on year, or by successive quarter this shows a drop in the employment rate for UK-born workers of 1.4 per cent while employment came down at a slower rate of 0.4 per cent for A8 born nationals – the smallest decline of any of the different groups analysed in the data.

Finally, as alluded to in earlier work by Full Fact there is a debate over whether to consider workers on the basis of their country of birth or by their nationality.

For this analysis at least the picture remains little different. Total employment for A8 nationals rose from Q4 2009 to Q1 2010, while employment for UK nationals fell. However year on year both groups saw their employment numbers fall by 0.9 per cent.

Conclusion

Fraser Nelson’s claim has not been given a Full Fact rating simply because we do not have access to the data on which his assertion is based.

However our investigation of the data that is published suggests a different picture to the one painted by Mr Nelson.

Given Full Fact’s belief in the need for transparent data behind claims made in the media we are keen to see his numbers.

Whether nationality or country of birth are considered, or whether employment numbers or employment rates are used, both the UK and A8 contingent have seen a fall in employment, when compared year on year. In some cases this is a higher rate than for those from the UK in others it is lower.

The data for the most recent quarterly change does show a rise in employment among A8-born workers and A8 nationals while employment among those born in the UK continued to decrease.

However not only is the value of quarterly comparisons disputed, but as this analysis shows, it is not the only way of looking at the figures.

The Spectator editor stressed that his figures were to highlight the most recent trend for employment levels between the two groups, and on this narrow measure the published data does back up his claim.

Yet a broader perspective will, as this research shows, tell a more varied story.

Patrick Casey