Most people’s views on immigration are ‘gut feeling’. They wouldn’t apply that logic to cancer treatment

Yes, the government has to step in to minimise any negative side effects from immigration – but they do the same for every other area of economic activity too

It’s easy to stir up hostility to outsiders; it appeals to the tribal part of human nature. But – and forgive the lofty tone – we wouldn’t have reached the heights of scientific and artistic achievement that distinguish us as a species if we were always at the mercy of our darker impulses. Reason and compassion have defined human history as much as tribalism and selfishness.

In discussions on a subject as emotionally charged and politically divisive as immigration, it can be hard for reason to get a look-in. But an overview of research on the economic impacts of EU migration, published on Monday, provides a good starting point for a rational debate about our post-Brexit immigration policy.

The briefing from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) looks at the way EU immigrants affect employment levels, wages, productivity, public finances, public services and access to social housing, as well as house and other consumer prices in Britain. And it concludes the following: “Overall, the evidence shows no or little labour market impacts and positive impacts on public finances, growth and productivity. But economic impacts of migration cannot be seen in isolation from government policies, particularly on public services and housing.”

That last sentence makes a rarely heard but crucial point: immigration requires some kind of involvement from the government to minimise negative side effects.

This is no different from almost every other area of economic activity. Firms are free to sell their goods and services to consumers to make a profit and improve lives, but regulators still design important rules on product safety and advertising, and fine the companies that break them. Thanks to banks, we can borrow to buy a home and businesses can borrow to fund expansion, boosting economic growth. But the authorities set out rules on product suitability and require banks to hold enough capital, or “rainy day” funds, to prevent government bailouts.

So the same applies to immigration. The NIESR briefing says there is evidence that EU migration leads to higher productivity and, by extension, to faster GDP growth that outpaces the associated increase in population. The institute also says there is no evidence to suggest that EU migration has had a negative impact on public services, although it accepts there is a lack of research on this subject. The more important point, though, is that it is within the government’s control to limit any such adverse effects – for example, longer waiting times in hospitals or a shortage of school places in some areas.

“EU migrants have a positive impact on public finances, both in any single year and over their lifetime,” NIESR says, noting that their net contribution to the public purse is greater than that of British natives. “But it is unclear whether this ‘migration windfall’ has been used to sufficiently offset pressures to public services caused by the population increase resulting from migration.”

The Migration Advisory Committee, for one, doesn’t think so.

The independent body that advises the government says in its September 2018 report that it is “not convinced” sufficient attention is paid to allocating extra public funding to areas where immigration has increased demand for public services. This is similar to the problems created by rapid house-building. When apartment blocks spring up in a particular area, the influx of new residents to an area puts pressure on local transport, GP surgeries and schools. Yet we rarely blame the new arrivals, instead directing our ire at the lack of coordination between the authorities and the housebuilders.

The economic impact of immigration is, of course, not the only yardstick by which its merits should be measured. Its effect on social cohesion is worth discussing too. But it is an important measure, nevertheless, and research such as that analysed by NIESR should find a wider audience.

According to another briefing by the institute published this week, many in the UK are “highly misinformed” about immigration, and people who lack knowledge about immigration tend to view it more negatively. That is unfortunate. To draw another analogy, few of us would make a decision on whether to go through with a medical treatment based purely on gut feeling, without seeking out information on its pros and cons.

Why, then, would we not take the same approach to tackling one of the biggest policy challenges of our time?