No

David Coats, associate director policy, The Work Foundation

The UK is going through a profound demographic transformation, with more people over retirement age and fewer young people entering the labour market. If the economy is to continue to grow and if the UK is to have enough people in work to pay the pensions of the retired then there is no alternative but to fill gaps in labour supply through immigration.

Whether we have achieved the "right" level of immigration is essentially an empirical question. It is important for public policy to be based on a dispassionate review of the evidence rather than anecdote or prejudice and it is welcome that the government has established the migration advisory committee to undertake this task. If the process works then the Home Office will be able to design a points-based system for migration from outside the EU, which matches employers' demands to labour supply.

This is important if the UK is to avoid the dangerous situation where the debate about migration is focused only on the supposed negative impact on the labour market: falling wages and rising unemployment among British citizens. In reality, of course, immigration has had a positive impact on the economy in recent years, with migrants filling labour shortages and enabling the economy to grow without running the risk of an inflationary wage-price spiral.

The question to ask is what would have happened if the UK had closed its borders? And the answer is equally clear. Higher inflation, higher interest rates, slower economic growth and potentially higher unemployment.
The government and employers need to make the positive economic case for migration with both conviction and determination. Most importantly, perhaps, government must be able to produce a clear and transparent account of the number of migrants, where they are working, how long they plan to stay in the UK and the contribution that they make to the nation's prosperity.

Yes

Sir Andrew Green, chairman, Migrationwatch

This debate has been transformed by a report from the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs in April. It concluded: "We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population."

Indeed, the government's own evidence to the committee implied an annual benefit to the resident population of only 62p per head a week.
Government policies have allowed immigration to add 1.6 million to our population over the past 10 years—a rate that is 25 times higher than at any time in our nation's history.

As to the future, immigration will add to England's population about the equivalent of seven cities the size of Birmingham over the next 25 years; we will have to build a house every six minutes for the next 20 years.

We propose a clear distinction between skilled workers admitted to meet what should be a temporary need for their skills and people given permission to settle here permanently. The former would be given work permits under the points-based system but only for a maximum of four years. The latter should be subject to an annual limit similar to the number emigrating.

EU citizens, asylum seekers, genuine marriages and exchange students would not be affected.

This policy of balanced migration would mean that up to 170,000 people a year would no longer gain an almost automatic right to settle here. It would stabilise our population as we become the most crowded country in Europe. And it would strike the right balance between sustaining a competitive economy and a stable society.