15 December 2016
Thinking Forward
Britain’s immigration offer.
by John Watson
Is he Remoan? Is she from the headbanging wing of Leave? Reading the popular press you might think that these were the pivotal questions of British politics. It is a relief, then, to be reminded that beneath the rhetoric and position-taking, serious thought is being given to how our relationship with the EU might look after Brexit and to read the paper “Britain’s immigration offer to Europe” written by Sunder Katwala, Jill Rutter and Steve Ballinger on behalf of the non-partisan think tank, British Future.
The paper goes directly to the heart of the matter: the central tension between the public’s desire to escape from the rules on freedom of movement on the one hand, and the worry that the EU will not allow us access to the single market unless we retain them, on the other. If we could produce a system which both satisfied public concerns and gave EU citizens rights to work here which were acceptable to the EU, then this central logjam could be broken. Viewed like that, all depends on making the right “immigration offer”, and those who believe that the EU will reject anything other than full free movement need to bear in mind that immigration is an issue in other parts of the EU and that some continental commentators are already beginning to canvas an EU with a deeply integrated core and a satellite belt of “partner countries”.
What then might be acceptable to the British public? “Brexit means Brexit” we have been told rather unhelpfully, and the various factions spin the referendum result as supporting their particular views of the future. The authors of the report, however, produce some interesting statistics. Although the Leave vote undoubtedly indicated concerns on immigration, a poll carried out for British Future found that 46% would like to see the migration of highly skilled people increase and 42% would like it to remain the same. It seems then that the public would like to see controls being imposed only at lower skill levels although, even there, there is a feeling that some sorts of work should be exempt. Only 25% wanted to reduce the immigration of people who will care for the elderly, for example.
Against that background, the report suggests a three tier system. At the top level are the highly skilled: academics, specialists or businessmen. The suggestion is that they should be entitled to move to the UK to work without restriction, and the authors would like to see the same treatment being offered to top people worldwide. Unfortunately they do not say just how good you have to be to count as “top tier”; that is a detail for the politicians to fill in. Still, they suggest that those who do sufficiently well at British universities would make the grade. In view of the polling figures mentioned above it seems unlikely that the public would have much difficulty with this.
More difficult is the second tier; people whose jobs exceed a particular “value” threshold. The threshold might be determined by pay level or by reference to Standard Occupation Classification codes, which are awarded by reference to the skill required. The UK already runs something on these lines for non-EU immigration. There the sponsoring employer has to show that the post in question cannot be filled by an existing resident.
The third tier is for low-skilled and semi-skilled jobs which cannot be filled locally. Here the UK would keep complete control, but the offer to the EU might be that its citizens would have preference in the filling of any quotas. There are questions as to whether those who come to do the job should be offered a six or twelve month visa. On the basis that the system would confer an EU preference, there would be difficulties in extending it to other countries.
The paper buttresses these suggestions with a proposal to increase transparency with an annual report to Parliament, rather on the lines of the budget. That idea certainly seems to have merit. Immigration figures had become a political football and, in these days of a resurgent right, we can expect to see them being used to undermine race relations. If information is public, it will limit the extent to which it can be manipulated.
The report is very much a framework and one can question the demarcations, particularly between the second and third tiers. Still, it is a framework which could lead into a negotiation and push us away from the sort of posturing which could result in a game of political beggar-my-neighbour.
The details of the proposal will have to be worked through and it would clearly be unwise for them to be put on the table too early. As to the general approach, however, it is hard to see what its disclosure would jeopardise in terms of negotiating position. There is little flesh on the bones here and some ideas, such as visa free travel of the type we already enjoy with Australia and New Zealand, are clearly good. Hopefully when the government reveals its negotiating stance it will contain proposals of this sort. After all, immigration is the key. Come to a sensible compromise on immigration and agreement on access to the market is likely to follow. Once that area too is covered, everything else becomes relatively obvious or unimportant.
If you enjoyed this article please share it using the buttons above.
Please click here if you would like a weekly email on publication of the ShawSheet
