The target is 'economically damaging' and 'potentially socially divisive'
A group of cross-party MPs have written to the government today, calling on them to abandon the unachievable target of cutting annual net migration to the tens of thousands.
‘We are concerned about the economic and social implications of plans to dramatically reduce migration to the tens of thousands,’ write Anna Soubry MP, Pat McFadden MP and Norman Lamb MP, co-founders of the Open Britain campaign.
“Indeed, we consider keeping the target to not only be economically damaging but also potentially socially divisive, as it is based on the premise that migrants are a negative for our country when they are in fact the opposite.”
Open Britain argues that the government’s commitment to the target has been undermined in recent months, as ministers from across departments have proposed that particular sectors be exempted from immigration controls.
Jeremy Hunt has proposed an exemption for social care, David Davis for hospitality, Andrea Leadsom for agriculture, Greg Clark for universities, Philip Hammond for the financial sector and Sajid Javid for construction.
Combined, these sectors represent 34 per cent of all EU nationals currently living in the UK.
The MPs continue:
“The tens of thousands target means annual migration will have to be reduced by over 170,000. In light of Ministers’ comments about key sectors, the bulk of this reduction will fall on non-EU migrants and EU migrants in non-protected sectors, such as energy, manufacturing, information and communication, science, or areas of the public sector.
Such a reduction focused on these sectors would deny businesses of the skills and talent they need and exposes the target as unachievable. We agree with the Government’s commitment in its recent White Paper on the UK and the EU that we must be a country ‘that recognises the valuable contribution migrants make to our society and welcomes those with the skills and expertise to make our nation better still.’ This ambition is, however, incompatible with the tens of thousands target.”
The target, first introduced by David Cameron but recently reaffirmed by Theresa May and Amber Rudd, has been extremely controversial among Conservative ministers. George Osborne and May clashed repeatedly in cabinet meetings during her time as home secretary, when he believed that the government’s obsession with controlling immigration was curtailing its economic efforts, particularly his attempts to woo Chinese business.
It has also been slammed by pro-EU campaigners, who feel that Cameron gave the Leave campaign an open goal by allowing them to argue that realising the target was impossible while Britain remained in the EU.
It’s now clear that, even outside the EU, there is no way to reach the target without creating work shortages and major fiscal pressures, potentially requiring an increased labour tax.
If the target is to remain official government policy, the campaigners conclude, the government must quantify the potential harms and justify its decision to plough ahead regardless.
Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin is editor of Left Foot Forward. Find her on Twitter.
See also: Is David Davis plotting a pro-migration Blairite coup against Theresa May?
See also: Labour shouldn’t fall into the Leave campaign’s trap on immigration
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
One Response to “‘Drop the Target’ campaigners call on government to abandon ‘tens of thousands’ migration pledge”
Fred
The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world. Everyone wants to trade with us. That puts us in a strong bargaining position, not a weak one.
The only reason so many migrants have worked in hospitality, social care, and agriculture is that they are the only people prepared to work for such low wages. If you restricted migration, those industries would be forced to offer higher wages in order to attract labour. Think about it. Say Pret a Manger can’t get people to make its sandwiches for £7.50 and hour any more. So it has to offer £8. Still no-one. So it has to offer £8.50. Then people apply. Then it realises this impacts on profits, but it can’t put its prices up because demand falls away. So all that happens is that people get paid better wages to do the same job, financed by Pret’s profits.
Secondly, immigration has put enormous upward pressure on the housing market. Fewer people, less demand, prices fall.
So we have higher wages and more affordable housing if we reduce immigration.