One of Labour's key economic justifications for mass immigration is to be rejected by a major inquiry.
The headline figure used by Ministers against critics of the unprecedented influx of foreign workers to the UK is that they boost the economy by £6billion every year.

But the most in-depth study of its kind by a parliamentary committee will conclude this is not the best measure of the policy's success or failure.

In a blow to the Government, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee will say on Tuesday that the amount migrants boost the economy per person - rather than overall - is far more relevant.



Experts say this shows only a tiny net contribution to gross domestic product, worth as little as 28p per week.

This has to be balanced against the enormous strain they place on schools, hospitals and other series - valued at almost £9billion.

In evidence to the committee, which includes former Chancellor Norman Lamont, the Home Office produced the headline figure that migration boosted output growth by £6billion in 2006.

It secured Ministers a series of positive headlines last October.

It was backed by a series of statements that migrants are more reliable than British-born workers, have a better work ethic and are willing to work longer hours with less time off sick.

The Government study said that business leaders backed the contribution made by migrants. They said that native workers were sometimes unreliable in certain sectors, especially agriculture, hotels and catering.

But critics of government policy have long argued that simply judging the success or failure of Labour's open- door migration policy on their contribution to GDP is short-sighted and misleading.

Sir Andrew Green: The Migrationwatch chairman has said GDP per head is the relevant figure

Key to the argument is the difference between total contribution to GDP and that per head.

The Treasury says immigrants supported 0.5 per cent of growth in the economy - worth £6billion in 2006. But, at the same time, they have added around 0.5 per cent to the total population.

This means the contribution per person is roughly the same. But, at the same time, by adding to the number of immigrants in the country, there is more strain on public services.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, has repeatedly said GDP per head is far more relevant.

In his own submission to peers, Sir Andrew said there is annual benefit to the native population of about £14 per year, or 28p a week.

"Using the Treasury's own assumptions, the average addition to GDP per head is very small indeed," he said.

"In contrast the impact on population is very large - equivalent to a new Birmingham every five years."

The committee has also heard the costs to wider society of immigration could easily outstrip the economic benefits.

David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to peers, he said there had been an "absent-minded commitment" to increase the population by one million every five years.

Professor Coleman said the costs to the public sector include £ 1.5billion to run the asylum system, £280million to teach English to migrants and at least £330million to treat illnesses such as HIV.

Immigrant communities are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, he added.

Mass immigration also imposes "congestion costs, diverts investment to new infrastructure and housing, impinges on space and amenity and accelerates the output of waste and greenhouse gas emissions."

One of the Government's own advisers concluded Britain does not need any more immigrants.

Predicting unaffordable house prices and a risk of overcrowding, Lord Turner attacked Labour's "economically illiterate" case for mass migration.

He accused ministers of using arguments, knowing they do not stack up, to justify the influx of newcomers.

Lord Turner, a former CBI director, said: "In general, the language of an absolute 'shortage' of workers, of a 'need' for immigrants to fill gaps in the labour market, plays little useful role in the immigration debate and in most cases is simply economically illiterate."

Click here for full story (Daily Mail)

Further evidence the loony-left are deliberately destroying Britain from inside-out via uncontrolled mass immigration!

__________________


Vote for common sense! Vote BNP!

Join the BNP today, and help give our kids a future!(Click here for membership info!)

Click here to join The Trafalgar Club!

New 'Identity' Magazine website!

'Freedom' Newspaper website!

Click here for BNP TV

BNP FAQs (Please read!)