When Britain voted for Brexit four years ago it was very clear that a government implementing it would have to meet the desire of a majority of voters to “take back control” of Britain’s borders. Immigration from the eastern European states that joined the EU in 2004 may have benefited the economy but, for many people, it brought the realities of European integration too close to home. When EU immigration persisted during the austerity years and pressure on public services intensified, so did the pressure for change.
The question since then has been whether it is possible to combine tighter immigration controls with the government’s ambition to be open to the best talent from around the world, led by a prime minister who is rarely shy about declaring he supports immigration. As he once put it: “I’m probably about the only politician I know of who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration.”
It is just possible that the government has succeeded in squaring the circle. As we report today, the immigration regime that will come into effect on January 1 next year — after the end of the Brexit transition period — will, as promised, introduce a points-based system. However, while many people have backed such a system because they expect it to result in a clampdown on immigration, the one that the government has designed may do nothing of the sort.
The new system will certainly change the composition of immigration, with a bigger proportion of skilled and a smaller proportion of unskilled than before. Having sensibly got rid of the David Cameron-Theresa May target of reducing net migration to the “tens of thousands”, the government should be able to concentrate on what works, rather than meaningless and unachievable numerical targets.
In the run-up to agreeing the new policy, the prime minister and Priti Patel, the home secretary, appeared to be at loggerheads. She wanted to retain a £30,000 salary floor for migrant workers. He, having been warned by representatives from many sectors that this would leave them unable to recruit any overseas workers, because their average salaries are below that, wanted something lower. Fortunately the government’s migration advisory committee came to the rescue. It proposed a salary floor of £25,600, which is what will be adopted.
Sensibly, too, the government looks ready to introduce additional flexibility into the system. Thus, a potential migrant who can demonstrate any or all of good English skills, a high-level academic qualification, who is taking a job in a sector where there are skill shortages and who will work in regions other than London and the southeast, will earn points. Those points will count towards allowing them to come to Britain to work, even if the job they are taking up does not strictly meet the salary level defined in the rules.
Meanwhile, in an effort to make Britain a magnet for “global talent”, those deemed to have the skills and expertise the country needs will be able to come freely. That chimes with public opinion, which has never had much of a problem with the talented and skilled but has been troubled by apparently unlimited migration of the unskilled from the EU. Free movement was never an issue until the arrival on a large scale of workers from eastern Europe. Once enormous differences in take-home pay became a feature of the EU with its enlargement to the east, free movement became a problem.
The new system will not work for everyone. Somebody on the minimum wage (now known as the national living wage) of £8.72 an hour from this April, working 37½ hours a week (the average), will earn just over £17,000 a year. The rules are unlikely to allow migrants to take such jobs. For some parts of the economy, such as care homes, hospitality and retailing, the minimum wage is the norm. Paying more — for a care industry dealing with local authority customers and therefore unable to increase its fees, or for retailers blighted by the high-street crisis — is not an easy option.
Some sectors will struggle when the supply of cheap EU workers is cut off and these will have to be treated with sensitivity. Overall, though, this looks workable and sensible. It will take back control, without closing the door to the foreigners this country needs.
TheTimes (UK)
END
Be the first to comment