During the EU referendum campaign, Vote Leave proposed that after
Brexit the UK should take the chance to adopt a points-based
immigration system. Boris Johnson, now the Foreign Secretary, and
Priti Patel, now the International Development Secretary, signed up to
this policy along with the Conservative MP, Michael Gove, and the
Labour MP, Gisela Stuart.
To call this a “promise” is obviously mistaken.
The Vote Leave campaign stated, rather frequently, that the point of Brexit was to
“take control”. With power restored to us, the Government can decide
what to do with it, and then the electorate can decide what to do with
the Government. This includes whether to have high immigration or low
immigration and what priority to give to who.
However, given the constant demands on the Brexiteers to set out a
plan, it was perfectly reasonable that they were provoked into a
response. So Boris et al backed “a genuine Australian-style points
based immigration system”. They added that: “Those seeking entry for
work or study should be admitted on the basis of their skills without
discrimination on the grounds of nationality. To gain the right to
work, economic migrants will have to be suitable for the job in
question. For relevant jobs, we will be able to ensure that all those
who come have the ability to speak good English. Such a system can be
much less bureaucratic and much simpler than the existing system for
non-EU citizens.”
The current immigration policy is discriminatory. Free movement with
the EU means the open door largely applies to those with white skin.
The restrictions largely apply to those with brown or black skin.
Some critics have said that Australia has a higher level of
immigration than the UK. But that is how they choose to apply the
policy. Entry on merit does not necessarily mean a high number or a
low number. A points-based system means you decide how many points are
needed, and how to allocate those points.
A new opinion poll for Survation shows the policy would be popular: 59
per cent of people back the idea of an Australian-style points-based
system; only 18 per cent are opposed.
There are certainly benefits to immigration. Most of those who come here
are hard-working, enterprising and willing to obey the law. Taking
back control means being able to exclude the criminals and the welfare
tourists.
But where are those immigrants who are let in going to live? The
starting point must be how many people can be accommodated.
We sometimes see economists declare that for house prices to rise in
line with inflation we “need” an extra 250,000 or 300,000 houses each
year. The Government has set a target for a million homes this
Parliament. Trying to measure success through these rather arbitrary
figures has a feeling of Soviet central planning about it. But then
there isn’t a proper housing market. Housing supply is constrained by
the planning system. The supply could be eased if surplus state land
was sold for development. The Nimbys would be placated if the new
homes built were beautiful and attractive.
Yet at present housing supply is suppressed. Housing demand keeps on
rising along with the population. The present arrangement of
uncontrolled immigration is a huge factor in that, resulting in
millions of British people being unable to afford to buy. Londoners
are now spending two thirds of their average income on rent.
Just to assume mass immigration as a given and then extrapolate from
that that we “need” a particular number of new homes is the wrong way
round. Immigration must be brought down to a manageable level first.
Once we have sorted out the housing crisis then a more liberal policy
might be realistic. A points-based system would mean accepting that reality.