A “tough new Australian-style points-based system for immigration”: Boris Johnson’s radical new proposal, splashed across Thursday’s front pages? No, that was Liam Byrne, then the Labour immigration minister. In 2007. I was a civil servant then, and I complained to a special adviser colleague, more in sorrow than in anger, that what we were proposing had little or no resemblance to the Australian system – and wasn’t even really a points-based system. “Of course, I know that perfectly well,” he said. “But the focus groups love it.”
It is in that light that we should read Johnson’s essentially vacuous pronouncements, spun in the Telegraph as the restoration of “control over our borders” and in the Financial Times, by contrast, as “bringing down barriers to skilled overseas workers”.
There are essentially two ways of looking at this. The first is simply to note that, after Brexit, the UK will not have free movement (still less “open borders”) with any country except Ireland, but nor will it be closed to economic migration. Therefore, by definition, there will have to be a system that allows in some people to work, but not others, as is the case for every developed country, and is already the case for migrants coming to the UK from outside the EU, as it has been for decades. That means a set of criteria or tests – call them points, if you like – is required. And, as in Australia and in other countries, those “points” will be based on skills, education, whether you have a job offer, etc. In that sense, talking about a “points-based system” is a statement of the obvious.
The second way, however, is to look at how the Australian system (and other systems, such as the Canadian one, that actually have a scoring system) actually works in practice. The key distinguishing feature – which differs from most European countries, including the current UK system – is that potential migrants are not required to have a job offer, but instead can qualify on the basis of specific skills and educational qualifications, as well as other factors, such as age.
Now the relative merits of these two distinct approaches are disputed. Some argue that allowing people to settle permanently is a long-term investment for the country – and therefore simply looking at whether an employer wants to hire someone today might not necessarily be a very good indicator of their long-term contribution. Others, by contrast, point out that governments aren’t necessarily going to be terribly good at assessing that either, and that at least the requirement for a job offer introduces a market test. And the Australian and Canadian systems have in fact recently shifted in this direction.
What is clear, however, is that Johnson doesn’t seem to be thinking of a radical shift towards the Australian approach. According to the Telegraph, “foreigners who want to work in Britain will have to be able to speak English and must have a job before they arrive”. Except that’s exactly what happens under our current system for non-Europeans, with a few exceptions, which will presumably continue (if Manchester City signed Lionel Messi, who doesn’t speak English, it seems unlikely he’d be denied a work visa). Similarly, Johnson’s statement that new arrivals won’t be able to claim benefits is designed to sound tough while changing precisely nothing. In fact, there is really nothing in what Johnson has said that adds much to the government’s white paper, published in December, which set out plans for a post-Brexit immigration policy under which the main qualification would be the offer of a job paying more than £30,000.
So there are two interpretations of what’s going on here. The first is that he doesn’t know this (or knows it, but doesn’t care) but that what matters is the need for a shiny new policy proposal that sounds good. The substance is unimportant.
The second, however, is more positive. Since the Brexit vote, there has been a substantial shift in public opinion, which is far more positive about immigration than three years ago. As London mayor until 2016, Johnson was well aware of how much damage Theresa May’s restrictionist policies did both to key growth sectors in the UK economy and our broader international image, especially in fast-growing economies such as India. But as long as she was prime minister it was difficult to shift policy in a more liberal direction.
However, after her departure, there will be a window of opportunity. Sajid Javid has already signalled that he wants to go beyond the white paper, by reducing the salary threshold as well as perhaps introducing new flexibilities for Scotland, Wales and the regions. The Australian system has its own problems (although the notorious offshore refugee processing centres have no connection to the system that applies to economic migrants). But if “Australian-style points system” is in fact code for “An immigration system that recognises the needs of the economy and is genuinely open to the world”, that will be good news for “global Britain”.
• Jonathan Portes is professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, and a senior fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe programme