Immigration in Britain. After the flood

Why the British government's new plan for controlling immigration is a bad idea

DEBATE about immigration is steeped in metaphor, ranging from Enoch Powell's rivers of blood to the more usual waves of foreigners flooding the nation and swamping public services. The imagery is usually liquid, carrying with it the idea of a force of nature, rushing out of governments' control.

That notion suits the Conservatives nicely. Michael Howard, the Tory leader, wants immigration to be one of the big subjects for the election expected in May. That's not surprising: it is the only important policy area in which voters consistently give the Tories higher marks than the government. The government is equally keen to dispel the idea, which is why this week it announced plans to restrict entry further.

Good migrants and bad migrants

The government's determination to show that it has got things under control is understandable, but is based on two mistakes. The first is the idea that immigration is out of control. Three years ago it was, partly because the bureaucracy was in a mess and partly because conflicts in various troubled places (a factor sadly way beyond the government's control) led millions of people to flee their homes. The number of asylum-seekers trying to get into Britain peaked in 2002 at 8,700 a month. Since then, the government has done much to make the system work better, and applications have fallen by 60%. However, the number of people being granted work permits has gone on rising and now stands at more than twice the number of asylum-seekers. But the government itself sets the number of work permits, so the high current inflow of foreigners is not a sign that immigration is out of control.

Voters seem to understand this. Polling shows that Britons tend to dislike asylum-seekers but are untroubled by foreigners who have come to work. That may say uncomplimentary things about both the compassion of the British people (asylum-seekers' economic inactivity is hardly their own fault, since they aren't allowed to work) or their logic (“bogus” asylum-seekers, the most-hated category, are, after all, economic migrants by another name) but it also suggests that the issue may lose its political salience. The polls support that idea: concern about immigration peaked with asylum applications in 2002, and has since fallen alongside them. So the government's worry that the Tories have put their finger on a hot electoral button may be misplaced.

The second mistake lies in the direction of policy. Over the past five years, the government has quietly liberalised the work-permit system: businesses, which used to have a tough time getting permits for foreigners, now find that applications go through pretty much on the nod. By and large, it is employers who determine what kind of immigrants get jobs. They ask for permits, and the government responds, usually positively.

But if the government wants to be seen to be getting things under control, it cannot just let employers decide who gets into the country. That's why it is now moving away from a system that responds to employer demand to one driven by what the government thinks the economy needs. Under the new rules, fewer low-skilled workers will be allowed in, while those with plenty of qualifications and experience will be welcomed, particularly if their skills fall into categories believed to be in short supply. A committee of experts will be assembled to determine exactly what those skills are.

This way of managing immigration has a respectable pedigree - sensible people such as the Australians and Canadians do it - but that does not mean it makes economic sense. Employers are better than governments at knowing what jobs are in short supply (as Australian employers discovered a while ago when the government got its sums wrong and left them with a critical shortage of doctors). If governments think that immigration is running at politically unacceptable levels, they should limit total numbers. Micro-managing the labour market is not the answer.

Until now, the government has been quietly and commendably liberal on economic migration, but now it is worried. It hasn't yet started building dykes, but is trying to channel the flow. That is a mistake: it risks ending up with a flood in one place, a drought in another and a policy up the spout.

Editorial says 'Why the British government's new plan for controlling immigration is a bad idea'

• Primary Source