Even well-intentioned citizens should not call for a Migration Impact Fund for areas affected by immigration.
EU Citizens Pay Their Own Way By Taxes
That is the argument of a new report which points out that EU immigrants in total contribute more to the Exchequer by way of taxes than they take out in public services.
Main public services like schools, GPs, clinical commissioning groups (which fund hospitals), police and local authorities are funded by formulae which are largely based on weighted capitation. So an extra pupil, an extra patient comes with extra funding.
And while some immigrants impose extra costs – for example poor English language skills – most do not; and some natives also impose the same extra costs.
Nor do immigrants reduce the quality of public services. In schools in particular the evidence is that immigrant children increase the educational attainment of British children, when comparisons are made like for like, after allowing for socio-economic factors.
Public bodies will always be able to find useful ways to spend money made available to them. But local authorities and other public bodies already have broadly based budgets that allow them to respond to all issues that affect them and their areas.
We should not provide a separate funding stream for each aspect of their work. That would reduce local discretion and increase administration costs.
The Government’s “Controlling Migration Fund”
Since 2010, governments have cut budgets in order to deal with the fiscal aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. £billions have been taken off local authority budgets alone.
This Government’s 2016 Controlling Migration Fund offers £100m spread over four years for local services. In financial terms that sum is irrelevant given the scale of past cuts and present budgets: the Fund is an addition of 0.05% to local authority budgets for local services.
The name of the Government’s Fund tells us what the Government is about. The other limb of the fund provides £40m a year to reduce illegal immigration.
But even the many well-intentioned parties and think tanks that call for a Migration Impact Fund need to explain why they think it meets a genuine financial need, given the way public services are actually funded.
Talking About Immigration
Launching a Migration Impact Fund validates the belief that immigrants are the problem for public services.
Those of us who support EU immigration should not encourage false beliefs, even if actions would show that we were listening to expressed concerns.
That is because opposition to immigration – even if expressed in economic terms – is rooted in personal values and beliefs.
We cannot address a values-based concern by practical measures designed to achieve economic objectives.
Rather we must address the underlying concern. The most effective way of doing that is to highlight how immigrants assimilate and become British when they settle here for good.
The Young European Movement’s Campaign to celebrate “the Great British Immigrant” is a good example of how to carry that message across.
http://yem.org.uk/greatbritishimmigrant/
Michael Romberg is a former HM Treasury civil servant specialising in public finance. He is a member of the European Movement. On Facebook, he runs the Campaign for the Real Referendum – on the Terms of Brexit.
You can view the full report here: EU Citizens and Public Service Budgets – Report – 5 January 2017
Michael Romberg is a former HM Treasury civil servant specialising in public finance. He is a member of the European Movement. On Facebook, he runs the Campaign for the Real Referendum – on the Terms of Brexit.
London4Europe is hosting the report as a contribution to the debate. The views in the report are the author’s and not necessarily those of London4Europe or the European Movement.