CLAIMANTS OF NON UK ORIGIN

‘It is not acceptable that people from other countries can claim our benefits if they have not worked or paid tax in the UK. We will root out those claimants who can not prove their immigration status and in turn they will be stripped of their benefits.

I was shocked to discover that the current system does not record the nationality of benefit claimants and we are urgently taking steps to make sure we know exactly how many non-UK nationals are claiming UK benefits. Welfare reform is giving us the opportunity to reshape the system and in developing of universal credit we are looking at how to record nationality at source”.

C GRAYLING

From this Rightsnet story: http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/news/story/371000-benefit-claimants-had-non-uk-origin-at-time-of-applying-for-nino-acc/

Nasty stuff from a nasty man.

Some salient points from the research however:

1. Non UK nationals (at the point of NI registration) are much less likely than UK nationals to be claiming working age benefits: 6.6% as aginst 16.6%. Immigrants tend to be young,fit and working;

2. over half (54%) of the sample have been granted British citizenship since NI registration. Still ‘foreigners’  though which is what matters to Mr Grayling;

3. in a sample of 9,000 there were 125 cases where the benefit claims were POSSIBLY in conflict with their immigration status. Not a great deal of rooting out and stripping needed then;

4. the sample is drawn from all non-UK nationals who registered for a NINO SINCE 1975 - 36 years ago - and matching them to February 2011 working age benefits claimants. Many of the sample will of course have worked, paid taxes and paid NI since registration.

5. this was specially comissioned research - ‘ad hoc’ the DWP call it - immediately leaked to the press, not because there is a problem here but solely to manufacture xenophobic outrage;

6. Some sort of visible identifier might be needed for non-UK nationals to satisfy Mr Grayling and the Daily Express. Any suggestions?

Richard Atkinson

Nothing I’ve seen so far has suggested that the 2%, a pathetically small figure upon which to base moral outrage, who were found not to have a compatiable immigration status were actually claiming fraudulently - which suggests that it is the DWP mistake to award the benefit rather than the claimant giving false information