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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno