Minister sets out new approach to immigration policies - Plus ca change, plus ce le meme chose?

Did immigration minister Damian Green really say anything new when he spoke to an audience in the basement of the Royal Commonwealth Society in central London on Monday night?  His claim that the coalition’s policies would be established on a sound evidence base was an echo of the approach outlined by one of one of Labour’s early immigration ministers, Barbara Roche, way back in March 2001 when she introduced the perspective paper ‘Bridging the information gaps’. Nothing new there. 

Mr Green took his audience through an example of the sort of evidence he expects to be guided by, in the form of a paper,  called “The Migrant Journey” and published on the Home Office website that very day. The aim of this study is to review “the behaviour of migrants entering the UK immigration system in the major non-visit routes” and “the common pathways through the immigration system that result in settlement.” 

No doubt we will find points of interest in the 20 pages of this analysis and our newsblog will look into this in more detail over the next couple of days.  But the headline issues which it infers from quantitative analysis of administrative data extracted from the UK Border Agency database seems to suggest conclusions that come straight from Basil Fawlty’s Ministry of the Bleeding Obvious.  A “clear majority (63%) of dependents admitted under the family routes are apparently still in the country after five years....  No surprise there surrely - they came to join family members who were living in the UK.  The one-third of this group who weren’t here after five years was, without a shadow of a doubt, made up almost exclusively of families that wanted to go and live in other countries.....Simple, no? 

The information provided on students seems to have suggested to the minister vast scope for new policy which would allow him to tighten admission policies for this group to allow some sort of progress towards hitting the targets aimed at under the government's immigration cap policy. Mr Green raised a new slogan, that only “the brightest and the best” should be allowed into the UK to study.  Those who are merely rather clever and likely to be not much more than a moderate success in life can be allowed to plough their lonely furroughs maybe in the technical colleges of her Majesty's former colonies in the Americas or the Antipodes.  

To make his case that students of a lower order should be excluded from the benefits of UK immigration, Mr Green had recourse to what is likely to be a contentious reading of the immigration data. He noted from the information in his department's report that one-fifth of people admitted as students remained in the country five years after their initial entry.  Whilst some newspapers (notably the Guardian - although the article has now been corrected) appeared to assume this indicated a high level of overstaying outside the immigration rules, the report makes it quite clear that the 20% who remain do so on the basis of extensions of residence permits granted by UKBA. The Home Office knows all their names and details because they had told them that they could remain in one legal capacity or another. 

But despite the legality of this prolonged stay, Mr Green is worried he notes that around 50% of the 2004 student cohort (185,600 people) were admitted for below degree level courses of study.  Can we assume that the one-fifth who remained in the country five years later was made up equally of highly educated degree and post-degree level students, and 50% below degree level?  The minister allowed the question to hang in the air, suggesting that the audience should draw their own conclusions.... 

The report is surprisingly unhelpful in allowing us to determine the truth of this point.  It notes a steady rising departure rate for students during the period after 2004, with 15% having left at the end of year one and 80% by year five.  There seems to be no reason to assume that a higher - probably much higher - proportion of those studying on shorter sub-degree level courses would be represented amongst the early departees than those on routes which not only permit them long periods of first degree studies, but also generally favourable consideration for further studies at Masters and Phd levels, and even access to employment on completion of an eligible course. 

If Mr Green is attempting to make the point that one-fifth, or a proportion approaching this, of those admitted for sub-degree courses are still in the UK after five years then he should indicate what part of the analysis raises this suspicion. However, at this point the confident reference to statistics and percentages breaks down and is replaced by a political rhetoric about the need to cater for ‘the brightest and the best’ in the world of education, and, presumably, to allow the merely intelligent and competent to go hang themselves.

But the coalition's apparent antipathy to international students is itself just a continuation of the clampdowns which had been promised by Labour during the final months of its administration. Once again, nothing new under the sun here. 

Other things can be said about the way the coalition’s policies were presented this evening by the minister which suggest a continuation of the most cynical and manipulative practices of the previous government, with ‘facts’ being asserted which are not supported by the evidence and a constantly negative spin being put on all the news stories coming out of UKBA. (For more on this point, see Jan Brulc’s news blog on the tone of UKBA press releases from last week).  

Readers of these newsblogs will not be too surprised to find out staff members of MRN found Damian Green’s presentation of the coalition’s policy on immigration distinctly unimpressive.  The more important question is whether the approach now being propounded by the minister actually does provide a stronger basis in reality which is capable of being sustained over a prolonged period of time, or whether it will rapidly descent into the state of permanent crisis which afflicted Labour during its long period of office. Our view is that the adequacy of the policies will be fully test by reality and the proof of the pudding will be shown to be in the eating.  For our part, we predict that, just as with so much of what Labour advanced its policy, there will be substantial lumps in embedded in this particular dessert and there is a risk they will choke poor Mr Green, and whoever is unfortunate enough to succeed him.