IMM0101 - Evidence on Immigration

Written evidence submitted by Professor Thom Brooks

What approach should the Government take to different kinds of migration – for example skilled, unskilled, family migration, students and refugees?

The Government should reintroduce Tier 3 visas creating a full suite of Tier 1 to 5 visas.

Any Government targets should be directed on a particular visa type – e.g., that there will be a target or cap on Tier 1 visas, etc. – and no longer a net migration target driving policy that runs these very different categories of migrants together. This is unworkable.

The Government should consider entry routes to securing visas informed by both economic and social indicators. This could be supported, and perhaps enhanced, by broadening the membership of the Migration Advisory Committee to include a lawyer, a social policy expert and perhaps others.[1] This would address the issue that the impacts of migration are more than economic – and too often local issues and pressures are overlooked or unnoticed that have relevance.

What are the benefits and problems with different kinds and levels of migration, for the economy and society?

The benefits are well researched – to diversifying and growing our economic prosperity and to enriching our culture and knowledge of other cultures. Britain can be more competitive globally when it is more ‘in tune’ with the leading international talents.

The biggest problem with migration is the perception that there is too much. There is evidence that communities – such as in the North East – where there is the lowest numbers of foreign born individuals there is also the highest levels of anti-immigration sentiment. This negative perception has been fuelled by some media outlets although this is not to deny that challenges remain.

The public should have a more informed view of immigration and its effects on local communities but without being lectured at. It has been over 10 years since Sir Bernard Crick led a Life in the UK Advisory Group. This Advisory Group had the task of designing the Life in the UK citizenship test and developing policy proposals for how Britishness could be best understood and supported. Its members crossed the UK in a national conversation with the public that was useful for exposing myths and focusing on messages that cut across ideological rhetoric. The Advisory Group’s findings stay with us in the form of the citizenship test and citizenship ceremonies. However, much has changed over 10 years. For a start, the test and ceremonies have been launched – and without a single review since to see what evidence there is that they have assisted with integration as originally envisaged or how they could do so much better. As a migrant who has passed the test and become a British citizen, I would strongly recommend relaunching the national conversation that Crick’s Advisory Group started. I would use the UK citizenship test as a useful tool to engage the public in thinking about what British citizenship is (and is not) to inform the debate through public dialogue. Getting this clear on Britishness and citizenship is essential to helping set the terms of debate for finding agreement on migration both long and short residency.

What approach should be taken to EU migration as part of the Brexit negotiations – for example, points-based systems, or work permits; and geographical variations?

A points-based system is onerous and complicated. While used to attract talent, it can be set to a cap.

One issue not discussed in parliamentary discussions about the Prime Minister’s decision to not launch a points-based system is that there already is such a system in place for non-EU citizens. If a points-based system is not desirable, it is unclear why it is acceptable for non-EU citizens – especially if EU citizens are to be treated no differently than non-EU citizens in future.

I would recommend visas for different Tiers that could be set at a cap. This should be informed by evidence and not ignorance. The Government should form an evidence-based picture of what business needs are across different industries to ensure that Britain does get the best deal possible for our economy and society.

Geographical variations are an important consideration. These might be managed nation by nation with residency requirements to be fulfilled or that visa becomes invalid. However, the management of these visas may be onerous and care should be taken to ensure the public can have confidence that a visa permitting work or some other activity in a particular area does lead to work or some other activity in the designated area.

What steps should be taken to manage the impact of migration in communities?

The management of migration impacts should be championed at a local level in communities. A Migration Impacts Reduction Fund should be used creatively to provide funding support on one-off basis addressing needs where they arise across education, housing, health, transport and other needs.

Much attention has focused on addressing the impact of migration by only providing relief for this impact alone. For example, if more teaching assistants are needed in a school, these might be supported by a Migration Impacts Reduction Fund and directed towards assisting migrant children. But the Government should look more broadly. Focusing on particular pressure points in public services will not be enough. Impacts are not only about a seat on a bus or classroom. Some funding support should relieve these specific pressures with an added amount directed towards that community as a whole. There can be resentment with local people when new migrants receive the new services and facilities – however necessary they may be because of the needs of that community – and there is nothing changed for local people themselves. This should change. Support should be directed towards community projects and facilities benefiting non-migrant local people too.

Is it possible to build greater consensus behind immigration policy? What steps would be needed to do so?

As noted above, a greater consensus behind immigration policy can be built around a national conversation about UK citizenship. I would recommend using the UK citizenship test to direct the conversation with first steps being asking the public how well they would do on the current citizenship test – my research has found most struggle to pass and bemused to see what migrants must learn. I’d then direct the conversation about what it means to be a British citizen and what should be expected of new migrants that wish to become British too. This can be useful in demystifying perceptions and challenging stereotypes but in a constructive public dialogue. This can help build consensus about the importance of citizenship and the distinctiveness of British citizenship. That can then be used to take the conversation forward to what can be expected not only of British citizens but individuals wanting to come to Britain. Until we gain some better consensus about what we expect from each other, it may prove too difficult building a consensus on what we might expect from migrants.

How should trade-offs between immigration policy and economic policy be handled?

This is an important consideration. I would recommend that the Migration Advisory Committee be expanded to include at least a lawyer and a social policy expert – possibly a few more members with expertise in other areas. At present, it is a committee of economists. This must change if non-economic impacts are to factor into how immigration policy should be developed further.

Further reading – columns

Brooks, Thom (2016) ‘What should Theresa May do about immigration? A 6-point plan’, Daily Telegraph (22 July) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/what-should-theresa-may-do-about-immigration-a-6-point-plan/

Brooks, Thom (2016) ‘How Theresa May could win back the public’s trust on immigration’, Daily Telegraph (28 November) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/28/theresa-may-could-win-back-publics-trust-immigration/

Brooks, Thom (2016) ‘I swore an oath to Queen and country – why must public officials be the only ones to do the same?’ (20 December) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/swore-oath-queen-country-must-public-officials-ones-do/

LabourList columns - http://labourlist.org/author/thom-brooks/

Professor Thom Brooks, Durham University

Bio:

Thom Brooks is an award-winning author, broadcaster, columnist and senior policy advisor. He appears frequently on television, radio and in print media, including BBC One, BBC Two’s ‘Newsnight’, BBC News, BBC World Service, CNN, ITV, Sky News, Al Jazeera, ABC News 24, Deutsche Welle, France 24, RT, BBC Radio 4 (with Andrew Marr), BBC Radio 5 Live, The Economist, all major UK newspapers and many others including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post with 700+ media appearances including 210 media appearances in 2016. He has co-hosted programmes on immigration as well as British and American politics. Brooks writes columns for Daily Telegraph, i news, Sunday Express, Fabian Review, The Journal, LabourList, New Statesman, Northern Echo and others with 2017 media appearances found here. His research interests are in ethics, law and public policy.

As Head of Durham Law School, he is leading the biggest growth in the School’s 50 year history as academic staff numbers increase from 42 to 75 over the next decade – bringing our staff – student ratio down and retaining the tutorial and seminar teaching at the heart of our programmes. Full details on interactive CV.

Contact details:

Professor Thom Brooks

Head of School, Durham Law School, Durham University

[1] Recommended in Thom Brooks, Becoming British: UK Citizenship Examined. London: Biteback, 2016.