Vince Cable attends Liberal Democrat conference. Photo:Getty Images
Show Hide image

David Cameron can't keep blaming it all on the Liberal Democrats

Now he doesn't have those pesky Liberal Democrats to blame, David Cameron will soon find that his migration policies are a political and legal headache. 

So was it all Vince Cable’s fault? The latest figures show that the Government has once again missed its net migration target by a mile. The figures for net migration – the difference between immigration and emigration – for 2014 are more than three times David Cameron’s original target of net migration in the ‘tens of thousands’. But, listening to Cameron’s speech today, you could be forgiven for thinking that the failure of the Coalition Government’s net migration target could be pinned squarely on Lib Dem intransigence. Now, with a majority Conservative government, Cameron argued that he could put in place the reforms needed to get net migration down, to be set out in a new Immigration bill in the Queen’s Speech.

The truth is that, without the Lib Dems, the new government will still struggle to meet the net migration target – or its ‘ambition’, as it was referred to in the Conservative manifesto. There are three sets of measures the Prime Minister wants to pursue: a crackdown on illegal immigration; a renewed effort to support British people into employment (with an echo of Gordon Brown’s ‘British jobs for British workers’); and reforms to European freedom of movement through negotiations with the rest of the EU.

But none of these efforts are likely to have a significant impact on net migration. First, the vast majority of individuals making up the inward migration figures have a legal right to stay in the UK, so addressing illegal immigration is a red herring. Second, while some of Cameron’s efforts to support training and skills policy and address the exploitation of migrant workers are sensible, there is little evidence to suggest this will have a serious impact on numbers, at least in the short term, as they will not seriously deter most businesses from hiring migrant labour.

Third, Cameron’s efforts to achieve reforms to the benefit rules for migrants through EU negotiations will be a political and legal headache, particularly his proposed changes to in-work benefits, which will most likely require treaty change. Cameron will need all 27 other member states to agree to any treaty change – and it will be especially challenging to get Eastern European countries on board.

But, even if he does achieve welfare reforms there is little to suggest this will transform the net migration figures. The data suggests that EU nationals are less likely than average to claim unemployment benefits and only very slightly more likely than average to claim in-work benefits. There is some evidence to suggest that welfare states provision is one possible ‘pull factor’ for migrants, but decisions to migrate are influenced by a range of factors – including, crucially for the UK, shared language and a flexible labour market. It seems unlikely then that significant numbers of EU nationals will choose to not migrate to the UK on the basis of a change to the benefits/tax credits system.

Apart from these individual measures, there are structural challenges involved in achieving the net migration target – the UK’s relatively strong economy, flexible labour market, and linguistic and cultural connections will continue to make it an attractive place to come to. Even without the Lib Dems in government, departments are unlikely to want to cut their nose of to spite their face by drastically reducing skilled migrant labour from outside the EU. On top of this, even if there is a dip in net migration, it’s unlikely to last for long, due to the phenomenon of the “net migration bounce”: because migrants often leave Britain after a few years, fewer migrants coming here means fewer migrants leaving too. So a drop in migration to Britain would most likely lead to a drop in emigration as well – and consequently an increase in net immigration over time.

What does this all mean for the government? Rather than focusing relentlessly on the mirage of the net migration target, we need to do more to support communities affected by large increases in inward migration. In order to address public concerns practically and responsible, much more needs to be done to address the pressures of immigration, including on schools, GP places and housing, as well as on social cohesion.

The government’s commitment to a new fund to support communities most affected by high migration is an excellent first step that IPPR has advocated. There is a danger, though, that the fund is misused. In their manifesto, the Conservatives highlighted that the new ‘Controlling Migration Fund’ would be used to ‘ease pressures on services and to pay for additional immigration enforcement’. If the government wants to get serious about tackling the impact of migration, the fund should not simply be a cover for further enforcement efforts. This – not the net migration ambition – should be the real focus for migration policy over the next Parliament.

Getty
Show Hide image

There's nothing Luddite about banning zero-hours contracts

The TUC general secretary responds to the Taylor Review. 

Unions have been criticised over the past week for our lukewarm response to the Taylor Review. According to the report’s author we were wrong to expect “quick fixes”, when “gradual change” is the order of the day. “Why aren’t you celebrating the new ‘flexibility’ the gig economy has unleashed?” others have complained.

Our response to these arguments is clear. Unions are not Luddites, and we recognise that the world of work is changing. But to understand these changes, we need to recognise that we’ve seen shifts in the balance of power in the workplace that go well beyond the replacement of a paper schedule with an app.

Years of attacks on trade unions have reduced workers’ bargaining power. This is key to understanding today’s world of work. Economic theory says that the near full employment rates should enable workers to ask for higher pay – but we’re still in the middle of the longest pay squeeze for 150 years.

And while fears of mass unemployment didn’t materialise after the economic crisis, we saw working people increasingly forced to accept jobs with less security, be it zero-hours contracts, agency work, or low-paid self-employment.

The key test for us is not whether new laws respond to new technology. It’s whether they harness it to make the world of work better, and give working people the confidence they need to negotiate better rights.

Don’t get me wrong. Matthew Taylor’s review is not without merit. We support his call for the abolishment of the Swedish Derogation – a loophole that has allowed employers to get away with paying agency workers less, even when they are doing the same job as their permanent colleagues.

Guaranteeing all workers the right to sick pay would make a real difference, as would asking employers to pay a higher rate for non-contracted hours. Payment for when shifts are cancelled at the last minute, as is now increasingly the case in the United States, was a key ask in our submission to the review.

But where the report falls short is not taking power seriously. 

The proposed new "dependent contractor status" carries real risks of downgrading people’s ability to receive a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. Here new technology isn’t creating new risks – it’s exacerbating old ones that we have fought to eradicate.

It’s no surprise that we are nervous about the return of "piece rates" or payment for tasks completed, rather than hours worked. Our experience of these has been in sectors like contract cleaning and hotels, where they’re used to set unreasonable targets, and drive down pay. Forgive us for being sceptical about Uber’s record of following the letter of the law.

Taylor’s proposals on zero-hours contracts also miss the point. Those on zero hours contracts – working in low paid sectors like hospitality, caring, and retail - are dependent on their boss for the hours they need to pay their bills. A "right to request" guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Those in insecure jobs are in constant fear of having their hours cut if they speak up at work. Will the "right to request" really change this?

Tilting the balance of power back towards workers is what the trade union movement exists for. But it’s also vital to delivering the better productivity and growth Britain so sorely needs.

There is plenty of evidence from across the UK and the wider world that workplaces with good terms and conditions, pay and worker voice are more productive. That’s why the OECD (hardly a left-wing mouth piece) has called for a new debate about how collective bargaining can deliver more equality, more inclusion and better jobs all round.

We know as a union movement that we have to up our game. And part of that thinking must include how trade unions can take advantage of new technologies to organise workers.

We are ready for this challenge. Our role isn’t to stop changes in technology. It’s to make sure technology is used to make working people’s lives better, and to make sure any gains are fairly shared.

Frances O'Grady is the General Secretary of the TUC.