Introductory remarks by Petr Nečas at the Czech Presidency Conference “Strengthening EU Competitiveness - potential of migrants on the labour market”
Minister, Commissioner, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Guests,
It is my pleasure to personally welcome you to Prague. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to open the discussion on EU competitiveness and migrants in the labour market, and to contribute a number of my own reflections.
Migration, especially labour migration, is part and parcel of European history. A number of cultural monuments which, a little selfishly, we claim as our own would not be standing without the contribution of master craftsmen and journeymen from other countries in medieval Europe. Not a single cathedral would have been built if medieval states had closed their borders to these people. The same applies to Baroque, Renaissance and other architectural gems, paintings, musical compositions, and even extends beyond art. The mines and mills of Eastern Europe would not have developed without Saxon miners. Indeed, there are whole towns that would not have sprung up if complicated work permit procedures had existed in the past. Labour migration has been a natural part of European history for centuries. It is worth recalling that passports, work permits and the like are a relatively new phenomenon not introduced in most European countries until after the First World War. Until then, people were free to travel, work and study more or less how and where they wanted. However, the expansion of nation states after 1918 heightened concerns about other countries and engendered economic protectionism. The expansion of the welfare state in turn led to efforts to limit the fruits of the system to its own citizens.
Immigration has always, of course, prompted resentment of immigrants, who become scapegoats for real and perceived problems. Yet in the past the issue of immigration was not as burdened by the problems we face today, in particular by the existence of a large, welfare state and mass immigration from places we find remote in terms of culture and civilisation. In this respect, I would like to explore in greater detail issues that are more interrelated than meets the eye.
To some degree, we should welcome migration as it enriches the host society in numerous areas. Working migrants fill gaps in the labour market, deepen our culture and, not least, enrich our gastronomy. Nor should we lose sight of the humanitarian grounds. Hundreds of thousands of people fled the repressive Communist regime in this country. We are grateful in particular to the countries of Western Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia for taking them in and allowing them to start a new life.
Nevertheless, it is common sense that, while a reasonable level of migration is enriching, large-scale migration is unmanageable in terms of integration. Further, as a rule of thumb, the more different the country of origin, the more complex the integration of immigrants. The children of Czech immigrants in Germany and the children of Ukrainian workers in the Czech Republic are all de facto assimilated and unproblematic citizens of the target countries by the second generation. Events in the streets of Western cities clearly show that the same cannot be said of immigrants from other cultures and civilisations.
In short, it is necessary to take into account the absorption capacity of the target society. It is nice to have a Vietnamese trader down the street who, unlike his Czech competitors, is open until ten at night, it is pleasant to go for a kebab or a Chinese. But it is no wonder that some original residents may feel a certain cultural isolation if the number of immigrants in their area exceeds a third or half. To address these feelings, we must understand them. In these cases it is not enough to utter a few niceties about multicultural coexistence, which, anyhow, are usually only heard by those who live far from the outlying suburbs of European cities where social and ethnic tensions are concentrated.
When deciding whether to permit migration from countries outside the EU, we should look at the facts and not indulge in wishful thinking. The original idea that labour migrants arriving in the 1960s and 1970s would remain in the country only as long as they were needed and that they would leave in a crisis has not, of course, held true. On the contrary, the immigrants remained and, despite subsequent constraints, their numbers have risen on account of their high birth rate and international commitments on family reunification.
The existence of the welfare state plays a crucial role here. Social and health insurance, the protection of workers, unemployment benefits and a wide variety of other allowances enable everyone, working or not, to enjoy a standard of living in Europe that they could never achieve in their country of origin even if they worked to the point of exhaustion 14 hours a day. Therefore, when adopting European legislation we must make absolutely sure that people are genuinely coming to Europe to work; we do not want to attract migrants who are looking to exploit the extensive social welfare system, and we must be careful not to create a new pull factor and stimulate “benefit tourism”.
An overregulated labour market, barriers to entrepreneurship and a generous social welfare system offering little incentive are three factors leading to widespread and often long-term unemployment. This affects above all the highest risk groups: immigrants and their descendants, women, young people, and the unskilled. Businesses will think twice about recruiting people they are not entirely sure about if, as in many European countries, they need to meet several hundred conditions to release staff. These groups then backslide into the trap of long-term unemployment, welfare dependency and a higher tendency towards criminal behaviour.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
When we consider labour migration, we simply should not turn a blind eye to the other financial and social costs involved. The European economy as a whole is suffering from fundamental problems, some of which I have outlined here. The EU cannot be competitive in global competition and investors will not create jobs here – either for EU citizens or migrant workers – if we fail to address these issues.
Nevertheless, there may be occasions where EU employees really are unable to fill gaps in the labour market. Admittedly, the need for manpower in certain sectors may shrink due to the current financial crisis, and indeed that is already happening, but fundamental demand for migration in certain industries and in some countries may persist in light of their economic and demographic situation. Moreover, we will never put a complete stop to migration from outside the EU, nor would this be entirely in our interests. It is important to regulate and manage migration so that it is also beneficial for both the country of origin and the receiving country.
At the beginning of this year, the Czech Republic decided to launch a Green Card project. Under this scheme, long-term residence permits are granted for employment purposes. They are tied to a specific job and are issued to citizens of certain non-EU countries for two to three years, with the possibility of renewal. The aim is to facilitate access to the labour market for foreign nationals who have skills that are in demand in the Czech Republic. By implementing this project, the Czech Republic is trying to accommodate the needs of both employers and migrant foreigners.
The Green Card project was preceded by a Skilled Foreign Worker Selection project, which was launched in 2003 and aims to attract qualified foreign experts to the Czech Republic who were capable of integrating permanently into society with their families. This project offers the opportunity to apply for permanent residence permit in a shorter period of time, that is, after just two and a half years in the case of skilled workers, or even a mere one and a half years for highly qualified workers. Moreover, any project participants who lose their job are granted a “grace period” in which to find a new job, during which their visa is not terminated. Following the good response to this concept, it was incorporated into legislation governing the residence and employment of foreigners.
We hope that the Green Card project will meet the needs of the labour market while avoiding the trap in which some European countries have been caught. The existence of numerous minorities who often lack sufficient proficiency in the language of their host country, have a lower or much poorer educational structure and are obviously more affected by unemployment and criminal conduct, is certainly not desirable.
Experience shows that in many countries the results achieved by migrants as regards the employment rate, skills-based employment, unemployment and wages are disappointing. Many factors contribute to this situation. There may be certain objective obstacles, such as lack of education and training, or lack of knowledge of the host country’s language. The fact that migrants who arrive in host countries often lack social contact, and thus find themselves bereft of social capital, can also play a role.
These are objective obstacles which the state can only help migrants overcome up to a point. Most EU Member States, for example, offer foreign nationals financially secured “introduction programmes” typically consisting of three components: lessons in the language of the host country, civic orientation and training for the labour market, with the aim making migrants self-sufficient.
Migrants can also build their self-sufficiency by drawing on quality counselling and a wide range of retraining and educational programmes. The training of unemployed migrants for positions which require a certain degree of expertise and which are difficult to fill with workers from EU countries, such as professional nurses or carers, has proved effective. Despite all this, immigrants and their descendants in EU countries remain a group suffering from above-average unemployment.
Labour migration from non-EU countries should therefore be the last resort. We must focus primarily on the use of the labour market reserves we already have in the EU. This is one of the major benefits of the EU internal market. Migrants from EU countries know that they are not burning their bridges. For example, half of the workers from new Member States who went to the United Kingdom have since returned home.
We need to strengthen the flexibility of the labour market; we must modernise our economy. We cannot accept a situation where there is high unemployment in one part of the EU and massive demand for workers in another. As long as there are economically unjustified restrictions on the free movement of workers within the EU internal market, there is no way we can adopt legislation at European level that would guarantee migrant workers and their families a better status than the citizens of new EU Member States.
The key to improvement is greater labour market flexibility, elimination of overregulation, restrictions to curb the rampant welfare state, and creation of conditions making it worthwhile to do business in Europe. We live in a globalising world. If we fail to keep pace with developments in the global economy, we will become a culturally ethnographic reserve, a museum of bygone glory, visited by tourists from countries that still have a manufacturing base.
It is not enough to keep repeating the mantra that Europe has a skilled workforce. That will not save us.
Under the Lisbon Strategy, EU countries have committed themselves to become "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion" by 2010. Today, we are in a position to say, with reasonable certainty, that we are not going to deliver on our commitment by then. We should ask ourselves, self-critically, whether we have succeeded, for example, in cutting red tape for businesses by 20%. To what extent have we simplified the tax laws, which once again – in some EU countries – incorporate hundreds of exceptions and which the man in the street has virtually no chance of understanding? How far have we simplified the start-up process for new firms in order to stem the tide of tens of thousands of entrepreneurial Europeans making their way to the United States, where they can set up shop in half a day? What have we done for science and the development of excellence in higher education, so that US universities are not populated by European intellect? I am afraid that we have much to do before we reach a stage where the jingle about being the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world ceases to be just an empty phrase.
Ladies and gentlemen, before giving the floor to other speakers, I would like to wish you a pleasant stay here in Prague and I hope that you take away many interesting observations with you from this meeting.
Last update: 16.8.2011 15:43
