In his Progress speech last Tuesday, immigration minister Liam Byrne set out to demonstrate how Labour can win a public debate on migration, notably by making the case for its economic benefits. He also put forward the idea of a ‘great British weekend’ to celebrate ‘the best of being British’ and to strengthen shared values to be adhered to by any newcomer to this country.
After the recent increase in hostility in the debate around migration, in particular following the House of Lords committee report on the issue, any attempt to reframe the debate in a more positive way is to be welcomed. Mr Byrne’s audience could have been forgiven for doubting his intentions, as his speech was unassertively entitled ‘The progressive challenge: Can migration benefit the whole nation?’ But he successfully took on the House of Lords report, making the case for migration in general: he argued that it had made Britain more prosperous by leading to increases in growth, employment, wages and productivity whilst keeping inflation low.
Highlighting the economic benefits of overall migration is important and helps to address some of the myths and misperceptions; for example, the ‘taking our jobs’ theory rests on the basic economic error that the number of jobs in an economy is fixed on a one-in, one-out basis. But the government needs to make these arguments more clearly and more often.
The terms of this debate need to be changed and despite his good intentions, Liam Byrne has not yet convinced that he is able to do this. This might have something do with his starting point as he wants Labour to win the ‘progressive argument’ for – and here comes the problem – ‘carefully controlled migration’. Indeed, the term ‘carefully controlled migration’ came up an awful lot in his speech. It creates the impression that if the government is not careful, ‘swamping’ lies just round the corner.
However, based on past trends, a future ‘spiralling out-of-control’ does not seem likely. Indeed, the stock of overall foreign labour as percentage of the UK workforce has only gone up from 3.6 per cent in 1997 to 5.4 per cent in 2005. Whilst Byrne is right to argue that migration has doubled since the 1960s, this needs to be weighed against the expansion of trade which has increased by a factor of seven over the same period. Apart from this, though, the term does not seem to be especially progressive, and it is most unlikely to reframe the debate.
The fact that Byrne chooses the prefix ‘carefully controlled’ before making any positive case for migration highlights the dilemma that politicians are facing today. They are aware that the UK needs to attract more highly skilled migrants to address a number of developments taking place simultaneously. There is the rapid growth in ‘knowledge-intensive industries’ such as financial and business services, the creative industries, high-tech manufacturing, health and education which have driven the UK’s recent economic success. Here the UK needs to attract the best ‘human capital’ in order to preserve the country’s competitive edge and to prevent companies from moving abroad. Skill shortages combined with the ageing population mean that employers are crying out for foreign highly skilled labour. But as Byrne knows, politicians also need to be seen as ‘tough’ on the related but distinct debate of low skilled migration.
There is no easy solution to this dilemma but a first step would be to disentangle these issues. This is why it is not enough to make a general case for the benefits of economic migration. In order to change the terms of the debate Labour must differentiate between different labour pools and make a distinctive, positive case for highly skilled migration. The new points-based system for migration has been designed to make it easier for highly skilled workers from outside the EU to come to the UK. Now the government must follow this through by convincing the British public why the UK needs more highly skilled migrants, and that this can go hand-in-hand a policy of upskilling of the existing workforce.
Byrne concludes his pamphlet by noting ‘there isn’t much of a market for good news about immigration’. Maybe not. But there is certainly a market for more highly skilled, talented migrant workers. It would be good to hear progressive politicians assert it a little more forcefully.