Why there is still political pressure to cut immigration despite worker shortages

Net migration to the UK has practically halved, albeit from recent historic highs, according to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics. The latest official estimates showed 431,000 more people arrived than left during 2024, compared to 860,000 the previous year.

Gross migration – just those coming to the UK for 12 months or longer (but not necessarily permanently) – stood at 948,000, itself a decrease of almost a third from the estimated 1,326,000 in 2023. Politically and economically, it is mixed news for the government…

A major reason for the fall was new, stricter rules, introduced by Rishi Sunak’s government, but which came into effect too late to earn any credit from voters. They made it harder for students to bring dependents on a visa, while a higher earnings threshold for certain jobs helped drive the numbers down, as did a higher outflow of students completing their courses (and unable to gain work permits).

Economists broadly believe that immigration boosts economic growth, provided migrants are allowed to work, which most would be under the UK visa system. Students also contribute via tuition fees and general expenditure, while few make much demand on public services, and have restricted access to the welfare state. In a situation where many sectors, notably hospitality, construction, agriculture, health and social care, cannot expand due to lack of workers and skills, migration obviously adds to GDP and tax revenues, while improving demographics. The Office for Budget Responsibility assumes net migration will fall over the next few years, to a trough of 258,000 in the year to mid-2027, before reaching 340,000 by about 2029. The latest data seems consistent with that.

Although net migration is more popular and better understood since Brexit, politicians – now including the prime minister – tend to regard it as a “bad thing”. In his “island of strangers” speech last week, Keir Starmer broke with the old orthodoxy by declaring: “The chaos of the previous government also changed the nature of immigration in this country – fewer people who make a strong economic contribution, more who work in parts of our economy that put downward pressure on wages.” Hence the white paper on immigration and proposed tighter controls.

So even though the number is halved, it is still at high levels historically, and the political pressure is to reduce it further – but this may well have a negative impact on the government’s priority of a faster-growing economy.

A bit, but unless they state and achieve a goal of “net zero” or negligible net migration, Labour will never be able to match what Reform UK offers (unrealistic or damaging as that may be). On the other hand, they would be able to say that regular, lawful migration is down from the peaks seen under the latter years of Tory rule – what’s being called the “Boris wave” of migration. That record and the claim that they “lost control of the borders” is frequently thrown at Kemi Badenoch by Starmer. She is also hampered by an unwillingness to set a target figure for net migration. Another irony is that the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives – the end of free movement from Europe and the new “Australian-style points-based system” – was supposed to get migration down but achieved the reverse. Priti Patel, now shadow foreign secretary, is in the uncomfortable position of having to justify overseeing the “Boris wave” during her time as his home secretary.

These net migration figures have nothing to do with “illegal” migration – that is, irregular arrivals of people claiming asylum. It is a relatively small number in this context, typically 40,000 to 50,000 a year. Deportations are up during this government’s time, but the inflow remains roughly on trend. Nobody seems to think allowing them to work (currently unlawful) might help them make some positive contribution to the economy, and, sadly, there are few votes in defending even the most genuine of refugees.