Roland Rudd: Why business should stand up for immigration

These workers are young, motivated and economically active. Few of them claim welfare benefits

The recent announcement by the Government of a Commission on Integration and Cohesion was timely. While its primary purpose is to address tensions between ethnic groups, it underlines how much more needs to be done to convince people that migration to the UK should be welcome.

This comes at a time when the Government is considering whether to allow workers from Bulgaria and Romania into the UK. Migration from Eastern Europe has been an issue since 2004, when the "Polish plumber" became part of the fabric of UK life; in the past few days it has become even more so.

If any group should stand up for migration, it is the business community. There is a strong connection between economic success and the contribution of immigrants. Many sectors of the UK economy have been enriched by the input of minority groups. One can point to the French Huguenots and their contribution to textile industry, or the role of the Jewish community in building the City as a financial centre from the 18th century.

Today the UK benefits from the dynamic Asian business community and the global nature of our workplaces. Of the 350,000 people who work in the city of London, there are 189 different nationalities represented. Many of the recognisable faces of British business, such as Stelios at easyJet or Lakshmi Mittal of Mittal steel, are immigrants or the children of immigrants.

The European Union has extended opportunities to work and travel beyond one's own country. One of the founding principles of the European Economic Community set out in the Treaty of Rome 1957 was the free movement of people. Today, UK businesses benefit from a pool of labour from the rest of the EU. On the other side of the equation, many UK entrepreneurs have found fertile European markets.

Those who have called for an honest debate on immigration are hitting the nail on the head. Some coverage of the issue portrays immigrants purely in terms of costs, as if they were the sole source of crime, disease and corruption, as well as a drain on the public services.

It is true that one cannot wholly concentrate on the benefits of migration without recognising that there are costs. Yet economic pragmatism and the example of history should be our guide in this debate. Advocates of immigration should take confidence in the overwhelming majority of the research, which illustrates net benefits. One study suggests that a 1 per cent population increase through migration triggers a 1.5 per cent increase in GDP.

Beyond the generic benefits of immigration, there are specific arguments for the UK opening its labour market to Bulgaria and Romania. The previous migration from Eastern Europe in 2004 has been an undoubted economic success. As well as Polish plumbers, the UK economy now benefits from Hungarians in hospitality, Estonian engineers, Czech caterers and Slovakian scientists.

Stereotypically, these workers are young, motivated and economically active, with more than 80 per cent between 18 and 34. In contrast to the ugly caricature depicted in some quarters, few claim welfare benefits, with only 1.3 per cent applying for income support and jobseekers' allowance.

Despite the under-estimate of the numbers in 2004, the impact has been positive, plugging gaps in the labour market, enhancing productivity and boosting economic growth. The UK was one of only three EU member states to take the plunge and open our labour markets immediately. Others have followed the UK's lead and opened their labour markets. Italy recently became the eighth member of the original 15 to lift all restrictions on workers from Eastern European states who joined the EU in 2004.

Beyond history and economic rationale, there are clear strategic reasons for the UK giving the green light. It will enable us to cement ties and build alliances with the nations of Eastern Europe. In the realpolitik of the EU, this is no small thing. In addition, if western Europe embraces workers from the east in a whole-hearted way, it will mark another step on the road of the reconciliation between eastern and western Europe, the shift from communism to capitalism. Whereas once Romanians and Bulgarians were shaped by the decisions of Stalin, now they are more likely to be draw their inspiration from Starbucks.

There are big issues at stake. Some of the objections, such as those based on the impact on public services, are legitimate; others are scaremongering or worse. Such shrill, visceral arguments were heard in 2004, for example in the claim that the UK would not be able to cope with an influx of Slovakian gypsies. At times of tension, minority groups are at their most vulnerable, which makes it all the more important that the Government stand up for what is right.

In the debate so far, some business voices, notably the CBI, have called for a pause. Business for New Europe urges the Government to move head and continue its open door policy when Bulgaria and Romania enter the EU in 2007. The UK has the opportunity to take the lead on this issue and uphold the importance of the European single market. The prospect of further migration that triggers economic growth is a cause for celebration, not cowardice.

The writer is the chairman of Business for New Europe - www.bnegroup.org