Todayís Home Office figures confirming continued growth in the number of migrants from central and eastern Europe registered for work in the UK reinforces the need for a clear restatement of government policy on mass economic migration, alongside a thorough independent assessment of all the costs and benefits. This, says John Philpott, Chief Economist at the CIPD, is the only way to restore public confidence and bring a much needed sense of balance to a debate on immigration policy which tends to swing from one extreme (ëthe open doorí) to another (ëthe raised drawbridgeí).
Dr Philpott continues:
ìSince EU enlargement in 2004 the CIPD has been one of the few organisations to highlight that large scale migration from the new member states of central and eastern Europe imposes costs on the UK as well as bringing benefits. Employers, consumers and migrants are the main beneficiaries with less skilled workers, the core jobless and poorer communities ñ often themselves with high concentrations of disadvantaged ethnic minorities ñ bearing the brunt of the cost. This is because, contrary to common perception, the vast majority of migrants enter low skilled low paid employment. The CIPD has in turn drawn attention to the significant though limited role recent EU migration has played in the overall rise in UK unemployment since the end of 2004, contrary to the conclusion of government economists that there has been no identifiable impact.
ìDespite this, however, it remains our view that on balance the benefits have outweighed the cost, mainly because a bigger pool of foreign labour has helped keep wage inflation in check and enabled a faster rate of economic growth than would otherwise have been achieved. As CIPD research shows, a third of UK organisations employ workers from EC accession countries, with many pointing to their willingness to work and skill levels as key reasons for hiring them. Though the CIPD remains concerned about mitigating the costs ñ for example by means of improved education and welfare to work measures for ëhome growní jobless people ñ it is therefore not immediately obvious that restrictions should be placed on further migration from the new EU countries, particularly if, as expected, Bulgaria and Romania join the EU next year.
ìIf restrictions on migrants are deemed necessary for labour market or other reasons these should be imposed on less skilled migrants from outside the EU, which would demonstrate that the UK remains at the forefront of promoting the wider economic objective of a single European labour market and increased labour mobility within the EU (matching that found in the United States).
ìBut in making any policy decision it is vital that the government conducts and publishes a ñ preferably fully independent ñ analysis of the total costs and benefits of overall migration to the UK. This would not only inform and instil a sense of balance in public debate but also improve the chances of achieving a much needed cross party political consensus on immigration policy in an increasingly global economy. ì
Clear statement of Government policy needed in EU migrant debate
.
