Jeremy Corbyn’s push for a Migration Impact Fund to address the pressures placed on public services by immigration, as outlined in his conference speech this week, is welcome news. But the fund itself will not address all public concerns on the issue.

Members of parliament spend a lot of time listening to the views of their constituents, and immigration is one of the topics that many voters raise. The issues that are brought up are varied – as Keir Starmer described in a packed fringe meeting at this week’s Labour party conference. As shadow immigration minister, Starmer undertook a national tour to listen to public opinion. Alongside many positive and constructive suggestions and support for refugees, Starmer heard the public’s anxieties about immigration. High among these concerns was the view that migration has placed pressures on housing and public services in some areas – views that are supported by British Future’s own research.

Had there been a narrow ‘Remain’ vote, then a primary focus on managing the impacts of immigration would have made both practical and political sense. The ‘Leave’ vote undoubtedly opens up the bigger question of what immigration system we will have, and what future promises it would or would not be sensible and viable to make to the electorate on immigration. Crucial to rebuilding public trust will be ensuring that those promises are kept: ‘no false promises’ is an important lesson of the last parliament.

The last Labour government actually had two migration impacts funds. One, the exceptional circumstances grant, was targeted at schools, but the level of population change required to trigger its payment was set very high. In its final year of operation just four local authorities in England qualified for payments.

The Migration Impacts Fund was a larger grant, financed out of a £50 levy on visa fees and presented as additional funding for local services that incurred no extra cost to the British taxpayer. It was launched in 2009 with a £35m annual allocation. Some 99 county and unitary local authorities received funding in that year, for a range of services, including support teachers for migrant children, advice services, housing regulation and policing. There were many criticisms of the fund, which was felt to be too small to relieve pressures on public services. Crucially, from the perspective of public opinion, there were few visible outcomes from the Migration Impact Fund so it did little to address local concerns.

The coalition government closed the fund in October 2010 but introduced an immigration health surcharge, which most non-European Union migrants pay when they enter the United Kingdom. In its 2015 manifesto the Conservative party committed to a Controlling Migration Fund, which has yet to be introduced and for which Corbyn pushed in his speech.

It is intended that this new fund be financed by newly arrived migrants. But to fulfil its aims of dealing with the impacts of migration, the new Migration Impact Fund will have to be more effective than its predecessors. It must channel money to housing and to the frontline services that are affected by rapid population change, including those that are outside the remit of local authorities. As British Future argues in What Next After Brexit?, the fund should cover revenue and capital expenditure. Crucially, its work needs to be visible and publicised, to ensure transparency and accountability and to address local concerns about immigration.

But we also need to recognise that an improved Migration Impact Fund is not a magic bullet that will make public concerns about immigration go away. A major lesson of the referendum was that such anxieties are much broader. There is a lack of trust in the government to manage immigration competently and fairly and to get to grips with border control. Migrants complain they cannot access English classes while their neighbours are concerned that new arrivals lead separate lives. At the same time, universities find it difficult to keep the brightest and best international students and businesses complain that immigration rules mean they cannot recruit the highly skilled migrants that our economy needs.

We need a Migration Impact Fund, but to address these concerns we need a much wider review of immigration policy. Leaving the EU now gives us a window of opportunity to do this. As the Brexit settlement becomes clearer, parliamentarians from all parties need to sit down together and work out what Britain needs. We need an immigration system that works for business, is fair to migrants themselves, encourages integration and also has public support. The Migration Impact Fund is a welcome commitment from Corbyn, but it is only one part of the changes we need.

———————————

Jill Rutter is director of strategy and relationships at British Future. She tweets @jillyrutter

———————————

Credit: Dom Stocqueler