For example, Japanese car companies sent managers and technicians to introduce just-in-time supply systems, Kaizen management, and quality circles. They transferred their expertise to local staff (before returning to Japan so there was no net immigration). Subsequently those skills spread through British industry. So we should allow intra-company transfers, and limited other categories, for EU as well as non-EU employees.
Of course, tighter immigration controls designed to encourage upskilling British employees and increase investment will be met with squeals from business groups, who employ several spurious arguments. First, they say it is not economic to train British workers. When the Brexit Select Committee visited Sunderland we were greeted by the local councils, CBI, IoD, etc who said their main concern about Brexit was that they might no longer be able to recruit skills from the EU.
Nissan, the largest local employer, was not present, but I recalled visiting their plant when I was Trade and Industry Secretary and asking if they had difficulty recruiting skilled employees. They were too polite to say that was a stupid question – there were no skilled car workers in Sunderland! But, being Japanese, it never occurred to them to recruit from abroad. They trained local people and now Nissan’s 7,000 British employees are among the most productive car workers in the world. Had the doctrine of the CBI and co prevailed there would be 7,000 East Europeans in that plant and those Geordies would be flipping hamburgers.
Second, they say there are shortages. Blair claimed that we needed more immigrants to fill 600,000 vacancies. Four million immigrants later there are still 600,000 vacancies! Immigrants consume as much goods and services as they produce, creating demand for as much labour as they provide. Moreover, in a free market shortages only exist where pay is held below the market clearing level. If we limit immigration where there is a domestic shortage of skills, pay would rise somewhat , increasing incentives to train, acquire skills and invest: precisely what is needed.
Third, we are told that British people refuse to learn the skills we need. The NHS card is invariably played: “we need foreign nurses and doctors because too few Britons are willing to do these jobs”. This is untrue. Until last year over 30,000 British applicants for Nursing courses were turned away annually, according to the Nursing Labour Market Review 2016. Universities can take unlimited numbers for all courses from Art to Zoology – except nursing and medicine where numbers were strictly limited.
That was because bursaries came from the NHS budget, and it was cheaper to recruit from abroad (including nurses trained using our foreign aid) than train more domestic applicants. You have almost certainly never heard this on our liberal media who seem unconcerned about thousands of young Britons prevented from pursuing their vocation. Inconvenient facts which undermine the case for mass immigration get no airtime.
Fourth, estimates of the economic impact of migration usually ignore the impact on the capital stock per person. Both our productivity and our quality of life depend on the amount of capital invested in our factories, offices, roads, hospitals, schools, houses etc. According to our national accounts that investment amounts to £129,000 per head. To equip the 5.1 million people added to the population by migration since 2000 with a similar capital stock would cost £660 billion in investment we have failed to make.
Hence the housing crisis, congested infrastructure, crowded hospitals and lack of school places, all of which are visible. Hence also the inadequate investment (for the enlarged workforce) in plants, machinery, software etc, which shows up only in the productivity figures. We should not blame migrants for this but those who, for profit or political correctness, ignore simple economic truths and hard economic facts.
November 21st, 2017: Telegraph