IMMIGRATION

Theresa May follows her predecessor by setting a specifically vague target on net migration levels. But how will the targets on immigration be met?

As Theresa May seeks a mandate from the electorate on June 8 to proceed with Brexit negotiations under her own terms, there are certain and specific issues that should be central to her case. Immigration policy is clearly one of them.

But in keeping and in line with much of the Prime Minister’s campaigning so far, the political debate on such issues fall short on substance. Certainly, it’s apt to ask whether Conservatives can agree on what the detail of their immigration policy should be. Yet, when pressed on the matter, Home Secretary Amber Rudd, could only say that the party’s manifesto “will not be identical” to the last two election campaigns. Hardly enlightening given that one of the central tenets prior to the Brexit vote was people’s concerns over migration. Mrs May insists there will be no back-tracking, and the target will be to reduce net immigration to the “tens of thousands”, a policy enshrined previously by David Cameron. If that’s suitably vague to speak in such terms, we must question whether it is credible? In 2016, net migration stood at 273,000, and it is some 20 years since that figure was below 100,000. What interpretation are we to apply when the Prime Minister repeats the mantra of old by insisting that net migration be reduced to the “tens of thousands”? An issue of confidence might yet arise.

In all of this, however, we should be careful of assuming that the EU is to blame for the UK’s high net migration. That would be a mistake. Migration from the EU accounts for less than half of the total figure, at 44 per cent. The other 56 per cent, from the rest of the world, is already within the control of the British government.

A difficult dilemma arises. The suggestion being made is that immigrants who shore up our workforce will be permitted entry if they are important to the economy, such as filling the skills-gap in industries such as health and IT. But those who come here to work account for half of the annual influx. Reducing the immigration figure by enough to get anywhere near the target (whether notional or not) will be tough if an exception is to be made for the majority of migrants.

The government could halt the flow of students into the UK, but by doing so could harm our universities and cut off a supply of skilled workers who could help to drive economic growth if they stay on. Or, the number of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants could also be tackled. The most recent figures, however, show that just over 12,000 people were granted asylum over a 12-month period. Even if all of them were to be removed at a stroke that would make minimal difference to the headline figures.

When published, the Conservative manifesto could yet contain a coherent strategy on immigration. But, on the evidence of recent years, when net migration targets have been repeatedly missed, we are entitled to doubt whatever the document says will be done or if the targets will ever be achieved.