Skip to main content

Government 'in the dark' on migration

Brexit, we were told, was about 'taking back control'.  What that meant specifically was taking back control of our borders and immigration.  This was probably the most significant issue swaying voters in the referendum.  It masked all other arguments.

Now a parliamentary committee warns that the government has no clear data on migration and the government is working 'in the dark'.

The Government will struggle to take control of immigration post-Brexit unless significant improvements are made to the quality of migration data upon which it currently relies, the Economic Affairs Committee says in its report into Brexit and the Labour Market.

Commenting on the report, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, Economic Affairs Committee Chairman, said:

"The Government must have reliable statistics on migration before it formulates new policy, otherwise it will be making crucial decisions - of vital importance to the country's businesses - in the dark.

"It will take companies time to adapt their business models to be less dependent on EU workers and an implementation period is essential to ensure a smooth transition.

"Businesses will have to accept that immigration from the European Union is going to reduce and adapt accordingly. Some firms will need to raise wages to attract domestic workers. In other sectors, where migrant workers may not easily be replaced by domestic workers, firms will need to change their business models or increase capital investment in automated processes. All these options may lead to higher prices for consumers.

"The Committee's 2008 report on immigration warned that the employment of migrant workers could lead to businesses neglecting skills and training for British workers. As the recruitment and retention problem in the nursing sector highlights, these fears have been realised and training for the domestic workforce needs urgently to be given a higher priority."

The report heard concerns about the impact of Brexit on the Labour market from many sources, including the business community.

Many businesses told the committee they rely on migrant workers, and there is uncertainty over the extent to which any post-Brexit immigration policy would take account of this.  Unless the transition arrangements are clarified soon, businesses also are having to make contingency plans in the dark. 

Too much darkness, you might say.  Indeed,  and what business desperately needs is certainty in the labour market.  

We are now informed that the government will seek transitional arrangements to protect the economy, but there is little clarity about what these arrangements would be.   Businesses are having to take stock now,  and not wait for Brexit in 2019.   Furthermore, it will be more difficult for them to recruit skilled staff from the EU during the transition if job security becomes an issue.   Why would a skilled worker from the EU take the step of uprooting to live and work in the UK if they might not be able to employed there after 2 years?  

But why should British voters have any faith that leaving the EU would 'take back control of migration when the government hasn't successfully limited the flow of non-EU migrants? In the year ending December 2016, it is estimated that 588,000 people migrated to the UK. Of these 250,000 were EU nationals, 264,000 non-EU nationals, and 74,000 British nationals.

The answer is complicated, but then the factors driving migration are not simple.  They are a complex of economic opportunity, conflict, environmental change, and also the needs of the British economy.  

The term 'migrant worker' conjures images of low-skilled workers,  but the British economy relies on migration for the high-skilled Labour it needs.   The British economy has significant skill shortages. 

In the end, if economic sense prevails, then the needs of the economy will trump any idea of 'taking back control'.   This is why Brexit Secretary  David Davis won't and can't give assurances that migration will fall after the UK leaves the EU.  

On what was a vital issue for many voters in the referendum, those who voted for Brexit are in for a disappointment, and it really brings into question the reasons we are leaving. 








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …