Were 80 per cent of new jobs taken by immigrants last year?
20 June, 2011 - 15:32 -- Patrick Casey
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Labour MP Frank Field argues reforms to the welfare system may not change a situation where 87 per cent of new jobs last year went to immigrants. But is this statistic correct?
“Over the first year of the Coalition, 87 per cent of the 400,000 new jobs created were taken by immigrants,” Frank Field, Labour MP, Daily Telegraph 20 June 2011
With a warning that the Government's welfare proposals will not be sufficient to encourage British-born benefit claimants to go back to work, Frank Field today cites a set of statistics that will be familiar to Full Fact readers.
On numerous occasions we have explored the issue of employment levels by nationality and country of birth, and how this is often translated as a certain per cent of 'new jobs' going to foreigners or immigrants.
After Mr Field's remarks were picked up by other newspapers, including the Daily Mail, one Full Fact reader wrote in asking us to take a look
Analysis
The most recent available figures do not seem to quite match with the percentage quoted by Mr Field.
Only last week the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its latest Labour Market bulletin. This includes a breakdown of the country of birth and nationality of those in work (see page 28).
However rather than covering the year since the General Election, these statistics cover the year to March 2011.
What these figures show is that in the year to March 2011 a rise in employment levels of 416,000 comprised of 334,000 foreign born workers – only just over 80 per cent of the total, rather than the 87 per cent quoted by Mr Field.
We have contacted Mr Field's office to get to the bottom of the reason for the slight divergence in the rates. One possibility, apart from potentially different time frames, is that the ONS tables are for all people over the age of 16. A different figure could be produced if, for example, only people aged 16-65 are covered.
But beyond the numbers there are several points worth considering when looking at these statistics.
We've covered some of the caveats that need to be attached to statistics on foreign born workers in previous pieces, but they can be summarised as follows.
Analysis of the figures should take account of both employment by country of birth and employment by nationality. As stated above, the rise in employment levels was accounted for by roughly 80 per cent foreign born workers.
Using the other table on the same page, that of employment by nationality we see that 239,000 of the 416,000 rise in employment was accounted for by non-British nationals – a significantly lower rate of 57 per cent, but still a majority of the rise in those in work.
Because the ONS have in the past acknowledged that neither is on its own a perfect measure of the number of 'immigrants' working in the in the economy, both measures are given.
The second point to note concerns the portrayal of a rise in employment levels as the creation of 'new jobs'. Because the figure is a measure of people in work, not how many jobs are filled, this would not account for things like people having more than one job.
The portrayal of employment levels as 'new jobs' would also assume that when employment falls no jobs are created, only lost, and of course, even when employment is falling there could be some new jobs, just more being lost.
Equally we would not necessarily know how many people who moved into work were filling a 'new' job or just filling one that had recently been vacated.
The Office for National Statistics does produce figures for how many jobs are in the economy, but these are not broken down by the nationality of the worker, so there is no way of knowing what the proportion of new jobs going to foreign-born workers actually is.
Conclusion
So while the percentage quoted by Mr Field is broadly accurate, there are these two points worth keeping in mind when assessing this trend.
With a warning that the Government's welfare proposals will not be sufficient to encourage British-born benefit claimants to go back to work, Frank Field today cites a set of statistics that will be familiar to Full Fact readers.
On numerous occasions we have explored the issue of employment levels by nationality and country of birth, and how this is often translated as a certain per cent of 'new jobs' going to foreigners or immigrants.
After Mr Field's remarks were picked up by other newspapers, including the Daily Mail, one Full Fact reader wrote in asking us to take a look
Analysis
The most recent available figures do not seem to quite match with the percentage quoted by Mr Field.
Only last week the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its latest Labour Market bulletin. This includes a breakdown of the country of birth and nationality of those in work (see page 28).
However rather than covering the year since the General Election, these statistics cover the year to March 2011.
What these figures show is that in the year to March 2011 a rise in employment levels of 416,000 comprised of 334,000 foreign born workers – only just over 80 per cent of the total, rather than the 87 per cent quoted by Mr Field.
We have contacted Mr Field's office to get to the bottom of the reason for the slight divergence in the rates. One possibility, apart from potentially different time frames, is that the ONS tables are for all people over the age of 16. A different figure could be produced if, for example, only people aged 16-65 are covered.
But beyond the numbers there are several points worth considering when looking at these statistics.
We've covered some of the caveats that need to be attached to statistics on foreign born workers in previous pieces, but they can be summarised as follows.
Analysis of the figures should take account of both employment by country of birth and employment by nationality. As stated above, the rise in employment levels was accounted for by roughly 80 per cent foreign born workers.
Using the other table on the same page, that of employment by nationality we see that 239,000 of the 416,000 rise in employment was accounted for by non-British nationals – a significantly lower rate of 57 per cent, but still a majority of the rise in those in work.
Because the ONS have in the past acknowledged that neither is on its own a perfect measure of the number of 'immigrants' working in the in the economy, both measures are given.
The second point to note concerns the portrayal of a rise in employment levels as the creation of 'new jobs'. Because the figure is a measure of people in work, not how many jobs are filled, this would not account for things like people having more than one job.
The portrayal of employment levels as 'new jobs' would also assume that when employment falls no jobs are created, only lost, and of course, even when employment is falling there could be some new jobs, just more being lost.
Equally we would not necessarily know how many people who moved into work were filling a 'new' job or just filling one that had recently been vacated.
The Office for National Statistics does produce figures for how many jobs are in the economy, but these are not broken down by the nationality of the worker, so there is no way of knowing what the proportion of new jobs going to foreign-born workers actually is.
Conclusion
So while the percentage quoted by Mr Field is broadly accurate, there are these two points worth keeping in mind when assessing this trend.
Firstly, the difference between the 80 per cent suggested by the most recent ONS bulletin and the 87 per cent (in turn rounded up to nine out of ten in the Daily Mail headline) needs to be resolved.
The second is the difficulties both around the phrases 'new jobs' and 'immigrants' – particularly that on this measure an immigrant could potentially include British nationals born abroad.
While the points about the use of the phrase 'new jobs' may seem innocuous, it does mean that the statistics are being used to describe something they do not exactly show.
In glossing over this statistical subtlety, Mr Field is far from alone, which is why we have previously written to the ONS for these points to be set out clearly in the Labour Market bulletins.
The second is the difficulties both around the phrases 'new jobs' and 'immigrants' – particularly that on this measure an immigrant could potentially include British nationals born abroad.
While the points about the use of the phrase 'new jobs' may seem innocuous, it does mean that the statistics are being used to describe something they do not exactly show.
In glossing over this statistical subtlety, Mr Field is far from alone, which is why we have previously written to the ONS for these points to be set out clearly in the Labour Market bulletins.
Liked this? Read these:
Comment is free but facts are expensive!
Full Fact believes in the possibility of accurate and informed debate. Our factchecks look at whether it is reasonable for interested citizens to trust the claims of politicians and journalists based upon the evidence that is available to us. Where we find mistakes, we ask for them to be corrected.
Corrections:
We aim for our factchecks to be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. If you think we have made an error or missed some relevant information, please email: corrections@fullfact.org