Net migration – a target they wish they’d never set

Today’s migration statistics will make worrying reading for Theresa May and Damian Green.  Net migration to the UK remains stubbornly high at around 250,000 a year, leaving the government no closer to meeting its much-vaunted target of reducing net migration to less than 100,000 a year.  Total immigration continues to be stable at just under 600,000 a year (a level which has been similar since 2004) and emigration at just under 350,000 (down from a peak of well over 400,000 in 2008). The net migration target is a textbook example of how political imperatives can lead to bad policy.

The government have set themselves a target over which they exercise only limited control – they can do very little to directly affect either emigration nor EU immigration.  They have based the target on a problematic measure  because net migration figures are based on survey data and give a much better picture of trends than they do of absolute levels. And they have set a timeframe which means that they have to act quickly – lags in the data mean that net migration needs to fall by 2013/14 if the government is to go to the electorate in 2015 with a convincing account of its record.

All this leaves ministers in a very difficult position.  Despite ‘bearing down’ on all non-EEA immigration categories (work, study and family), and provoking significant resistance from (among others) business and the education sector, the painful policy changes of the last two years have not yet done much to reduce net migration.  Immigration for work has declined somewhat in that time, but this is driven largely by the continued weakness of the economy, rather than by a tougher visa regime (the decline started in 2007).

Recent reforms to the student visa regime are showing some early signs of ‘success’ on the government’s terms – student immigration is down 16% in the year to March 2012, and quarterly figures show an even sharper decline.  But this ‘success’ will come at a significant economic cost – education is one of the UK’s most successful export sectors, but this global position will be quickly eroded if the government continues its direction of travel on immigration. Damian Green is boasting today of a 62% decline in student visas in the first quarter of 2012 but if you think of international students as ‘education export customers’ instead and that boast starts to look economically illiterate.

Even worse, the ‘benefits’ of reduced student immigration in terms of reduced net migration will be short-lived  because the vast majority of students only stay for a few years, a short-term fall in immigration will be followed, as night follows day, but a fall in emigration which will wipe out most of the impact on net migration (although possibly not until after the 2015 election).

So far, the government has had a relatively easy ride from the likes of Migration Watch, who lobbied hard for the net migration target in the first place.  But if net migration remains at current high levels this will change, and Ministers may find themselves attacked both for imposing unnecessary costs on the economy in tough times, and for failing to deliver reduced net migration: the definition of a political lose-lose position.

We need a serious debate about immigration in the UK (and numbers do matter) but the net migration target focuses politics and policy exclusively on a numbers game, leaving no room for the kinds of discussion that the public want to have about jobs, communities and identity.  Failing to meet the net migration target also risks undermining public confidence in the immigration system at a time when UKBA is already under serious pressure. To coin a phrase that’s all too familiar to the Home Office, it’s time for the government to admit that the net migration target is not fit for purpose.

Sarah Mulley is Associate Director at IPPR

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Dementia Awareness Week: Should we keep an open mind to spiritual solutions?
• Hearing loss: An invisible impairment and a preventable disability
• Barking Blondes: When to vaccinate
• Enslaved to maize: Why we need to re-think Malawi's agricultural future
• The real ghetto superstar: Why Floyd Mayweather is no Muhammad Ali

• http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Tysoe/711623798 Matt Tysoe

  This country is screwed. We are witnessing the dismantling of England. Net migration simply CANNOT continue like this with unemployment at current levels and a housing crisis. Do we really want to sacrifice more countryside and hertitage to accomodate more and more people? 

• Nostradamus_1

  The current government is failing where the previous government failed. They are relying on PR sound-bites which they then try to implement.   
  Alright. It cannot be denied that the previous government made a pigs ear of the immigration service, causing visa issuing, port entry and enforcement sections to work at odds with each other, even though they technically come under the same umbrella.  Add to that the shortcomings of the Human Rights Act (HRA) which allows virtually every decision to be challenged with an appeal and its not a great starting point for any new government.

  That said, slagging off and then reducing the numbers of the individuals you want to work in what has for some time been a statistics led organisation is not the best approach.  

  Anyhow.  As for the statement about the majority of students staying for a couple of years. That is due to the change in policy relating to those who entered with visas for short term courses continually extending until they are entitled to apply for permanent settlement!  

  What is needed is a robust count them in count them out approach, backed up with an even more robust enforcement system which does it’s deportation preparation work before it detains over-stayers. Also legislation would have to be introduced which removes interference from EU law courts.  

  Wake up and smell the coffee!  

• juliarosemary

     The biggest single source of immigration is legal immigrants bringing or their children bringing in their relatives from non-EU countries,because of marriage or other means. The law needs to be changed on this.

• Azazel5150

  I am not going to presume I know anything on the state of affairs over there; but while I was there I bore wittness to alot of legal immigrants trying to live out their goals & then read about how some of these “legal” immigrants not only broke your laws but in one or two cases were paid substantioal ammounts by your goverment for being on house arresst a month or two longer than their sentence. I say kick the ones who act like that out. I am in the process of trying to immigrate to scotland to be with my wife. I have  2 bachelor degrees & am a hard worker who only wants to be with his wife. I am sorry things are rough over there it is the same way here in the states. I met some nice people from other countries but then I met some chav middle eastern & african bastards as well.

• Kugelschreiber

  If they all love Britain so much, then they should stay in their own countries,  and endeavour to EMULATE what we have here in Britain.    And look after their OWN people & economies, instead of abandoning them

  This govt is useless.  When will they get us out of the EU?  Which is a solution that is OBVIOUS to so many, but never to our govts.

• Kugelschreiber

  I’ve heard that the EU is threatening to fine us, unless we allow the workers FAMILIES to come & live over here too.

  To see for yourself, just Google:

  “Britain faces fine from Brussels over immigration restrictions”

  The EU will sink us in more ways than one,  if we don’t leave soon.

• http://profile.yahoo.com/BFKACJXA6JKQEBSUA4UCREY6ZU Julie

  No, look at it this way: Perhaps Britain should have stayed out of their countries instead
  of annexing them which then made them subjects and in some cases
  citizens, all with the right to abode in the UK. We’ve benefited from them at their expense and now we’re getting a taste of our own medicine. Stop winging and get on with it!

• sarahsmith232

  all that is needed is to get rid of the Human Rights Act and then start getting tough. not difficult but impossible with the HR Act. another Labour gov’ would use the HR Act as cover and try to wash their hands of responsibility.
  BTW, bogus students do enter the country and never leave. the 62% will be bogus students. eventually a gov’ that is at least trying to get something done