The Government should cap levels of immigration to Britain, a parliamentary inquiry concluded.
Peers, including two former Chancellors and several other Cabinet ministers, delivered a blow to the Home Office by concluding that record immigration had led to "little or no impact" on economic well-being.
Certain groups in Britain - the low-paid, some ethnic minorities and some young people looking for a foot on the job ladder - may have suffered because of competition from immigrants, the Lords' all-party Economic Affairs Committee said.
advertisement Ministers should set an "explicit target range" for immigration and set the rules to keep within that limit, the report said. It raised the prospect of cutting the number of partners and other family members allowed to settle in Britain because a relative is already here.
The peers rejected the Government's claim that immigration is needed to prevent labour shortages as "fundamentally flawed". They also warned that the much-trumpeted new points-based immigration system carried a "clear danger of inconsistencies and overlap".
"We are suggesting that the Government should set a target range for net immigration and then the rules should depend on the target range, rather than the numbers following from the rules as at present," committee member and leading economist Lord Layard said.
"You would have the scope to vary the scale of net immigration by varying the rules, by choosing how tight the rules should be."
Inquiry chairman Lord Wakeham said: "Looking to the future, if you have got that increase in numbers and you haven't got any economic benefit from it, you have got to ask yourself is this a wise thing to do? That is why we want the Government to look at it."
Lord Vallance of Tummel, committee chairman and a former CBI president, said the Government's economic arguments in favour of current immigration levels were "very shaky".
The Government's decision to use GDP as the main measure of immigration's economic contribution was "irrelevant and misleading", added the report. Instead, the yardstick should be income per head of population, or GDP per capita.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article