07 May 2004
Frontline managers feel that migrants from new EU states will burden services rather than fill gaps in the workforce
Immigration arouses strong views among public sector finance managers. This month's Public Inquiry, conducted in association with Reed Accountancy Personnel, coincides with European Union expansion and asks questions about its impact on regional funding for deprived areas, and the effects of any influx of immigrants seeking work.
Most respondents believe the government should impose quotas on immigrants and fast-track an identity card scheme to limit demand for public services. Most also want the government to provide national funds for deprived regions to replace investment lost through the reallocation of EU regional funding to the new member states.
Health care managers are particularly worried by the prospect of a wave of immigration: 68% want quotas and 63% support the fast-track introduction of ID cards. Attitudes are less clear cut in local government, but even here about half of respondents support quotas and ID cards, with fewer than 10% strongly opposed.
There are other differences between the sectors. Two-thirds of respondents in local government want the exchequer to pick up the bill for the loss of EU regional funds; 75% in central government do not.
Some respondents worry that immigrants will not settle in places with the most need of extra workers. 'Economic migrants should be dispersed to areas where skills are needed,' said one.
Miles Roberts of Groundwork West Durham makes a similar point. 'Initially the government must secure our borders to at least control the current influx of immigrants,' he argues. 'By definition, the immigrants will require work. I would like to see a policy where immigrants are only allowed entry when work has been secured, to reduce pressure on the over-taxed and over-burdened working population.' But he adds that genuine asylum seekers should be helped.
Many respondents perceive arrivals from the new EU states as an added burden on stretched public services rather than part of an expanding workforce. Tom Stevenson of Housing Hartlepool says: 'There needs to be a dispersal scheme to alleviate the pressures on London and parts of southern England. New immigrants need to be moved to areas where the infrastructure and facilities are able to cope with the numbers arriving. Central government must recognise its responsibilities and support local authorities receiving immigrants with appropriate resources to facilitate their resettlement in a proactive manner.'
One local government worker suggests that we should not assume that immigrants have a right to use any public services. He adds: 'Immigrants should not be allowed to enter unless they can prove on an individual basis that they can make a net contribution to the economy of the UK.'
But the principle of dispersal is accepted with reluctance by some. A health care worker says: 'A dispersal scheme would only be justified if local public services were falling below acceptable standards. Any scheme must be operated with sensitivity to both immigrants and local residents. The scheme should be temporary until public services can be brought back up to standard.'
Several local government managers, though, point out that people should not be forced to live where they do not want to and that resources should be directed to where immigrants choose to live. A central government manager adds that pressure on immigrants to live in areas where the existing population is hostile might lead to racist attacks.
These, though, are minority concerns. Public sector finance managers have indicated that they view European enlargement more with fear than optimism.
PFmay2004
