It is part of the ‘story’ of the last government that Labour got it wrong on immigration. To address the issue in future, we need to separate myth from fact and develop a new ‘something-for-something’ deal, writes Jacqui Smith

‘What I’m really cross about is that my son has just come back from working in China and he can’t get a job because they’ve all been taken by immigrants.’ I can remember the Redditch doorstep where I heard these words in the 2010 election campaign.

It has become part of the ‘story’ of the last government that we got it wrong on immigration. It is certainly true that immigration and related benefits issues were key questions on the doorstep. We did not fail or lie in government. A fair charge would be that we came late to the scale of reform necessary and that, by the time we did, people had stopped listening.

In fact we are justified in arguing that we delivered the most sustained and coherent immigration reform ever undertaken in the UK. This included: the points-based system – a simplification of the system but also a sophisticated infrastructure which could be flexible in line with the skills needs of the country; an e-borders system that made it possible to count people in and out of the country again after the Tories had scrapped embarkation controls; biometric visas; and a single and stronger border agency.

Why hadn’t this got through to that Redditch doorstep? 

First, we got to all this pretty late on in government. This is not to blame those who came earlier – they were dealing with other extremely pressing issues. On the doorstep in 2001 and 2005, the big issue was ‘asylum seekers’. Most people want to be able to offer a safe haven to those who need to leave their home countries, but they began to feel that there was a risk of Britain being overwhelmed. The UK, with a population of 60 million, was never at risk of being overwhelmed by even the highest annual number of asylum seekers at 84,130 in 2002. However, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (as it was then called) at the Home Office certainly was. It was a constant frustration to ministers and the prime minister that the IND failed to make decisions quickly enough or to keep track of those they were supposed to be managing. High-profile failures constantly put the government on the policy and communications back foot.

Second, we failed to win an argument about the benefits of immigration. We frequently extolled the economic and cultural benefits of immigration. We pointed out the boost to trend rates of growth from net immigration. But the arguments we used too often did not chime with the real and direct experience that communities across the country were feeling. This was exacerbated by our seeming unwillingness to accept that free movement within the European Union might not be an unalloyed good thing if the impact on you is a reduction in your pay, or a worry about the number of Polish children turning up in your child’s class unable to speak English.

Our approach at the next election needs to learn from the good and bad of our experience in government.

To begin with, we must hold the government to account for its decision to use a crude cap on numbers as its ‘tough on immigration’ tactic. The only way it will cut net migration to the ‘tens of thousands’ promised by David Cameron is by limiting groups like students where there is a clear economic benefit to the UK or by completely excluding some of the biggest groups, such as intra-company transfers, to fiddle the cap figures.

Next, in developing our own policy, we must argue for a ‘something-for-something’ deal in economic migration. Coming to the UK as a student or economic migrant brings real benefits for the individuals involved – that is why they are so keen to come. We should expect some things in return for the right to live, work or study here. In government, Liam Byrne toured the country asking people what the key elements of the deal should be. The response was that people should be prepared to speak English and play by the rules. This government is right to defend our policy that people should learn basic English when it is attacked through the courts. Equally we should challenge their cuts to English teaching in communities across the country.

Breaking the law in any significant way should be a trigger for people to be deprived of their right to stay. And it will not be good enough to say that freedom of movement within the EU or the Human Rights Act prevents us from removing people who have broken the law. I started negotiations within the EU that would have allowed countries much more ability to deport people who, for example, had a record of law-breaking that fell short of the current very high hurdle.  

In exchange for these tough measures, we should be more welcoming to those who come here. For example, through faster and more efficient decision-making in the UK Border Agency; promoting a ‘buddying’ volunteering scheme where local people can be paired up with newcomers; and working with trade unions to ensure that people are clear about their employment rights.

On numbers, we should make a more sophisticated argument about managing immigration for the benefit of the UK. The independent Migration Advisory Council which we set up can tell us where there are real skill shortages and vacancies that can only be filled through immigration. For these jobs employers could recruit through immigration. However, there needs to be a ‘something-for-something’ deal for UK employers here as well. If you are granted permission to recruit from abroad, you should make a contribution to upskilling UK jobseekers too – for example, by offering work experience to those on the work programme or placements for training courses.

There is a big difference between coming to the UK for a short period to work or study and the rights that come with indefinite leave or citizenship. In my last speech as home secretary, I proposed that we should extend the points-based system to determine those who were granted the right to stay indefinitely and to gain British citizenship. The government is consulting on some proposals around permanent settlement – we should argue that this should be an ‘earned citizenship’ which can embed the principles of speaking English, playing by the rules and making a contribution. Somebody who has learned good English, is working and paying tax, and has taken the time to contribute to their local community should be able to move more quickly to citizenship.

We should be explicit about the impact of immigration on communities rather than worry that this will play into the hands of those who want to foment trouble. In government, Hazel Blears and I introduced the Migration Impact Fund. This was a levy on immigration application fees which was then allocated to projects in communities to help overcome the transitional impact of new migration to an area. We also set up a Migration Impact Forum to gather the evidence, rather than the anecdote, about the effect of migration on communities. We should reinstate the fund and use it to mitigate any negative impacts that the forum identifies.

We can build a policy platform for the next election which demonstrates that the benefits of immigration which we all share in will be underpinned by robust systems to regulate it and by clear expectations of those who come to Britain to work, to live and to build a better life. As we stand on the doorstep in 2015, we will be confident to start the conversation, not just to respond and defend.

—————————————————————————————

Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary

—————————————————————————————

Photo: Josh McKible