skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Gordon Brown's speech on immigration last week was a call for mainstream political unity on an issue which can too often turn nasty (particularly in election years), a defence of the policy framework put in place by Labour, and a strong critique of the Conservative commitment to cap immigration.
Labour are working hard to position themselves as tough on immigration, in the face of a public and media debate that has often portrayed them as a ‘soft touch’. In fact, Labour have a good story to tell on immigration policy to those who are concerned about control.
No system is perfect, least of all in immigration, but the Points-Based System is a pretty effective way of deciding which migrants should be able to come to the UK to work, based on the needs of the economy; the Government have more-or-less got on top of the asylum issue; and the new UK Border Agency is presiding over an immigration system that is more functional and controlled than it has been for many years. Even the decision to open up the UK’s labour market to workers from the new EU countries, which led to a massive and largely unpredicted flow of migrants from eastern Europe (and considerable political backlash), has had few negative impacts and many positive ones.
Labour’s failings on immigration have been of politics, not of policy, in recent years. It’s worth noting three main political problems:
- Labour ministers have been reluctant to talk openly about the very real challenges and opportunities presented by immigration, which has added to a sense that the issue is somehow ‘off limits’ and ceded the space to those who hold extreme views. So, it is welcome that Gordon Brown is tackling the issue head on in this election campaign.
- Labour have allowed the political debate on this issue to become highly polarised, because they have not been able to develop a balanced and moderate narrative that occupies the middle ground and can convince the majority of voters. So, it was good to see Gordon Brown emphasising the (considerable) degree of policy consensus on the issue which now exists.
- Labour have too often tried to solve a political problem with a slew of policy announcements and changes. All too often, this only reinforces the perception that the immigration system is broken. So, although Gordon Brown was right to defend the policy framework that Labour have put in place, he may have made his political message less effective by also using his speech to announce or re-announce a range of relatively minor tweaks to the system.
Sarah Mulley
Anyone watching Newsnight this Wednesday would be forgiven for thinking that the entire debate about immigration comes down to numbers. Whatever people’s concerns about migration – be it the impact on the economy, public services or community cohesion – the answer from politicians is always the same: adjust the number of immigrants coming to the UK. Schools can’t cope with all the Polish kids? Stop letting so many Poles in. Pakistani immigrants aren’t integrating? Let fewer in to the country. The economy needs more skilled workers? Adjust the points system to let them in.
There is a danger with this approach that it assumes the only thing immigration policy can do is alter the number of migrants entering the country. But a lot happens once a migrant has crossed the border, too. Greater state support for settlement can improve integration and help tackle many of the problems people are concerned about. Schools can’t cope with all the Polish kids? Provide the schools with teaching assistants to help them cope. Pakistani immigrants aren’t integrating? Fund and support outreach workers to help them learn English and establish roots in the community.
I’m slightly bemused that while politicians are keen to point to Canada’s immigration system as a model way to control the number of immigrants arriving, they neglect to mention the fact that Canada also invests a great deal in supporting immigrants to settle in, and that their government endorses an official model of multiculturalism. Dedicated translation services, English language tuition, education programmes, information diffusion, citizenship instruction, employment programmes and social welfare policies are all part of the tool kit used. The evidence is that if you invest early in helping migrants to settle in to their new country, then you stave off many of the problems and tensions faced further down the line. It might just be more important to solving these problems than limiting the numbers you let cross the border in the first place.
Jonathan Clifton
All three main parties are keen to emphasise that they would be tough on immigration. The Liberal Democrats talk about a ‘firm but fair system’ while Labour emphasises its ‘tough but flexible’ Australian-style Points-Based System.
But the Conservatives have gone a step further and have made a cap on (net) immigration a headline policy. They have been reluctant to specify the details, so it’s not clear which immigration flows they would cap, or at what level. However, based on some reasonable assumptions about what an immigration cap might look like, ippr has produced a briefing paper.
To sum up our findings, setting a numerical limit on (net) immigration isn’t the simple idea that its proponents sometimes suggest – the changes in policy that would be required could cause the UK significant economic harm, and it would not be at all straightforward to limit immigration to a specific level.
Giving the reduction of immigration the status of a policy objective in its own right (which a cap would do) begs the question of what policy problem they're trying to solve. If it’s population growth, a cap would only make sense as part of a wider population policy, and presumably the real objective would be to reduce population growth, rather than immigration. If the concern is about public services, then it matters much less how many migrants come to the UK than how many go to the South East of England, or London, or Barking, or the catchment area of a particular school. A national cap with nothing to say about regional population distribution would not solve this problem.
So it doesn't make much sense from a policy perspective, but would a cap give the Conservatives a political ‘quick win’?
Actually, the Conservatives’ immigration policies may backfire on them. The public want government to be in control of migration and to be honest about the numbers. But control does not mean a drastic limit on net immigration. In fact, what often gives the public the impression that immigration is out of control is politicians making promises to ‘clamp down’ that they then can’t deliver. The immigration cap risks becoming one such promise unless the Conservatives can put forward a clear plan for how they would deliver it in government.
Sarah Mulley
Immigration isn’t attracting the kind of attention in this election campaign that it has in the past, in part because, although you’d never know it from the political rhetoric, there’s a good deal of consensus. The Government has made significant progress in reforming the immigration regime, and the Conservatives and Lib Dems don’t disagree with the basic policy ‘building blocks’ now in place: free movement within the EU, the Points-Based System (PBS) for work/study migration, and a much improved (if still far from perfect) asylum regime.
But there are some policy differences, so this is the first of three posts to take a quick look at the flagship policies of the main parties.
The Liberal Democrats have two important proposals for change.
An earned amnesty for irregular migrants: This is a sensible and brave policy position. There are between 500,000 and 750,000 irregular migrants in the UK, and it is simply not credible to suggest that they all be removed. Unless we are prepared to tolerate the exploitation and costs to society which stem from irregularity, some kind of earned regularisation is the only option. This isn’t easy politically but neither is impossible. ippr has found the public’s main concern about immigration is control – facing up to the problem of irregular immigration is actually a key component to demonstrating control over the system.
A change to the PBS to reflect different regional economic conditions and capacities to absorb migrants: this responds to a real problem, which is that immigration rules are national, but needs and impacts are local. But a regional PBS would further complicate a system that is already difficult for employers and migrants to navigate, and would be hard to enforce. And under the existing PBS if there are regional labour shortages, the system automatically allows employers in those regions to recruit more migrants as they can demonstrate they haven't been able to recruit locally.
A regional approach to immigration policy does have one thing to recommend it though – it’s a way of politically recognising the different local and regional contexts for the debate. That’s not to be sniffed at. If the Liberal Democrats can find a way to have a grown-up debate about immigration policy in an election campaign, they will have really achieved something.
Sarah Mulley, senior research fellow, ippr
