The 'Suppressed' Report Cometh

Continuing from where my last post left off...

Well, that 'suppressed' immigration report has now been published (around three hours ago)...

....and it certainly proved to be a very under-the-radar publication by the government.  Most newspapers, including the Mail, have yet to catch up with the news - so you probably heard it here first.

There certainly are shades of The Thick of It then, as Newsnight editor Ian Katz has been quick to tweet:

Only most sceptical Thick of It fan wd wonder if timing of immigration report release hd anything to do w 2 other big reports coming out tdy

Plus the report does look pretty finished to me.

So what does the report at the centre of Chris Cook's Newsnight report actually say? Here are its conclusions (presented neat, and without any pre-spin on my part):

 There is relatively little evidence that migation has caused statistically significant displacement of UK natives from the labour market in periods when the economy is strong. 

 However, in line with some recent studies, there is evidence of some labour market displacement, particularly by non-EU migrants in recent years when the economy was in recession. This is consistent with the idea that labour market adjustment is slower during a recession, and with wider international evidence.

 Displacement effects are more likely to be identified in periods when net migration volumes are high, rather than when volumes are low – so analyses that focus on data prior to 2000 are less likely to find any impacts. 

 There has been little evidence so far in the literature of a statistically significant impact from EU migration on native employment, although significant EU migration is still a relatively recent phenomenon and this does not imply that impacts do not occur in some circumstances. 

 Where displacement effects are observed, these tend to be concentrated on lower skilled natives. 

 The evidence also suggests that where there has been a displacement effect from a particular cohort of migrants, this is likely to dissipate over time – that is, any displacement impacts from one set of new arrivals will gradually decline. 

 The review also suggests that the nature of the available empirical data makes it difficult to reach definitive conclusions with regard to displacement, but at present, and notwithstanding the various caveats, the most reliable data set for assessing these changes remains the LFS [Labour Force Survey].

Ian Katz has already sprung onto Twitter to respond (as I mentioned earlier.)

Here's how he's spinning things:

Ian Katz ‏@iankatz1000 3h Immigration report: "To date there hs been little evidence...of statistically signif impact frm EU migration on native employment outcomes"

Ian Katz ‏@iankatz1000  3h Immigration report: Little evidence that migration has cost jobs for British workers while economy strong but some evidence during recession

Ian Katz ‏@iankatz1000  3h Immigration report: "Evidence suggests where there has been displacement effect from cohort of migrants, this dissipates over time"

That first tweet of Ian Katz's is a shortened version of this passage from the report:

To date there has been little evidence in the literature of a statistically significant impact from EU migration on native employment outcomes, although significant EU migration is still a relatively recent phenomenon and this does not imply that impacts do not occur in some circumstances.

Ian's tweet misses out the qualifying second part of that sentence, thus changing its meaning somewhat and making it sound worse for the government than it actually is, don't you think?

Ian's second tweet summarises the first two conclusions in the list above, and you'll probably instantly spot that Ian Katz drops the word 'relatively' from the phrase 'relatively little evidence', thus leaving the phrase 'little evidence' and again making it sound worse for the government than it actually is, I'd say.

Note also than Ian Katz opts not to tweet that "non-EU migrants" in particular have caused job displacement "in recent years", and nor does he choose to tweet the bit about displacement effects tending to impact worst on "lower skilled natives."

So beware of spin on tonight's Newsnight.


Update 17:00 And so it goes on....

Taking the right-wing party line on the story, the Telegraph spins this report as:

Low-skilled workers most affected by immigration in recession, says report
Immigration makes it harder for low-skilled British workers to find and keep jobs during economic downturns, a Government report that was reportedly withheld suggests

So different to BBC Newsnight's Ian Katz's left-wing spin on it!

I'd say you probably need to have a good sense of humour not to get annoyed by all this nonsense.


Update 18:45 Everyone's piling in, just as you'd expect them to.

The Daily Mail's angle on the report is much the same as the Telegraph's:

Low-skilled Brits were squeezed out of jobs during the recession, report finds as Clegg slams 'absurd' Tory immigration target

whereas Ian Katz's former newspaper, The Guardian, takes the same line as Ian Katz (stands back in amazement! - Who used to say that?):

Report reveals little evidence foreign migrants put British workers out of jobs

The Right goes one way, the Left goes another. That's bias for you!