THE UK workforce is increasingly cosmopolitan. Record numbers of immigrants are being drawn to our booming jobs market, adding to the 2.5 million foreign-born workers already here.

Figures compiled by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) show that about one employer in three intends to recruit overseas workers to fill all manner of job vacancies. Larger businesses, public service organisations and employers in thriving metropolitan centres are those most dependent on hiring immigrants. Bars and restaurants in London would probably grind to a halt without immigrant staff, as might some farms and food processing plants in rural areas.

No wonder, then, that some employers are uneasy about the emerging political debate on immigration. Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, acknowledges the economic benefits immigrants bring — they contribute to growth and tax revenue and their availability helps to keep inflation in check — but is worried by the pressure large-scale immigration places on housing, transport, schools and the NHS. As well as capping the number of asylum seekers allowed into Britain, a future Conservative government would thus require aspirant immigrants to pass an entry test before being offered work permits, with points awarded according to their skills and ability to meet labour shortages. The Conservative proposal has caused a stir. But all three major political parties are proposing some form of immigration control. The acid test of any such proposal is that it meets the legitimate needs of employers without compromising the wider public interest. A properly enforced system of work permits and/or a points-based assessment system seems to offer the most suitable way ahead. Fixed or arbitrary limits on numbers should be avoided.

Any attempt to set rigid immigration quotas would be a throwback to old-fashioned workforce planning. In a dynamic labour market it is virtually impossible to plan even short-term employment needs with tight precision. Migration quotas tend to be set either so high as to be meaningless or so low that they frustrate employers and risk being breached and thus discredited. Quotas also involve costly enforcement to counter the inevitable temptation to employ workers illegally. Resources would be better devoted to the effective management of the migration system — which ultimately is the best way to ensure that immigration works for us all.

John Philpott is chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Times Recommends

• Inspirational leadership
• How to get a new job
• The reluctant CEO