Personal Blogs

Yesterday, the respected think-tank Education Policy Institute published a report So Long, London - An analysis of London primary pupil movements that covers the consistently falling roll at schools in the capital with projections of where pupil numbers will stand by the end of the decade. The data is alarming.

In 2017/18 primary pupil numbers peaked in London at just over 700,000 pupils, that number is projected to fall to just over 600,000 by 2028/29. The fall in London is attributed to both falling birth rate and a higher cost of living in the capital that is forcing many young families out of town. There is also a Brexit impact with a higher proportion of international families leaving the country.

Whilst the fall in the capital is most pronounced, it is equally bleak in the rest of England where in the peak year of 2018/19 there were 4,512,711 primary pupils in England, by 2028/29 that number is projected to reduce to 4,240,919.

In total there are expected to be 400,000 fewer pupils at schools in England than there are today.

There are both very real short and long term effects of falling rolls in England.

In the short term it will undoubtedly mean that some schools struggling for pupil numbers will inevitably close, this will mean the end of many single form entry village schools whose viability is simply not sustainable.

The greater concern in the long term is of course a smaller workforce and the higher tax burden they face in paying for an increasingly expensive elderly population (not to mention the public services they will be expected to staff).

The real politics of this is that more children are needed to maintain a healthy society. If they are not coming through birth rates and in the political sphere immigration has become a dirty word it is incredibly difficult to see an answer to this problem. 

It is, perhaps, the understatement of the year to say that immigration is one of the most talked about issues within the political sphere at the moment.

Let me be clear, I don’t for one second think immigration is THE most important issue. Not by a long way. Housing, the social care crisis, defence, pensions, affordability of healthcare, the threats and opportunities of AI and taxation all come well above immigration objectively, but I would be the first to accept that immigration influences all of them to some degree.

Similarly immigration is more than just illegal immigration. It must take into account skilled workers, their families, high net worth migrants and asylum seekers. All fall under the spectrum of immigration and all should be treated in their own ways.

But illegal immigration is an important issue, with small boat arrivals being the most visible, if not necessarily the greatest in number (it is relatively easy to count small boat arrivals, but not those arriving or overstaying using other irregular methods).

It is particularly noteworthy that the significant majority of those arriving in the UK on small boats originate from countries with authoritarian regimes or ravaged by war and this will obviously, and rightly, impact the categorisation of migrants arriving in this way with many having justifiable asylum claims to be processed.

 

We are a country that has always been rightly proud of our role in supporting refugees and we should continue to be.

But, that isn’t the point of this post.

I want to reflect on that category of migrants that some, including the populist right, want you to believe all small boat arrivals fall into. I’m writing about illegal, economic migrants (which, to be fair, some asylum seekers may fall into the category too).

I have long questioned what is the best way to deal with this category of migrant and have come to the conclusion, which I am more than willing to be argued out of, that we are dealing with this category in entirely the wrong manner.

In order to arrive at this conclusion we need to look at the facts:

• If a young man, for this category is overwhelmingly young men, has left their home nation seeking a better life in Britain they have taken a hugely dangerous route. They have travelled through numerous countries and, often, across at least two seas in inflatable dinghies. They have faced a significant risk of death on multiple occasions and hostile authorities all for the promise of a better life. At a time when only 1 in 10 young Britons say they would be prepared to fight for their country, whether you agree with them or not, the bravery and desire of those ‘economic migrants’ in their determination to reach Britain really cannot be questioned.

• The populist social media commentariat would have you believe that economic migrants are only coming to the UK for benefits. The truth, however, is that whilst there is no direct comparison provision for asylum seekers is not overwhelmingly better in Britain than other comparable western European nations. It is unlikely that benefits is a key driver, much more likely is the overwhelming use of a global known and accepted language, England’s historical tolerance of incomers (and in no small part a holdover of empire).

But, if it is true that a significant number of small boat migrants are arriving here for economic purposes then my genuine question is why don’t we let them work?

Instead of placing migrants in hotel accommodation for an indeterminate time would it be better to provide hostel accommodation for a short term, fixed, period? A national insurance number with fixed term limitations on what can be claimed? And, perhaps, the offer of a ticket back to their home country if things don’t work out?

If these ‘economic migrants’ really are here in search of a better life, isn’t it more English to give them that chance?

And if they are working legally, paying tax and national insurance, they would become net contributors. At a time when the tax base needs increasing then they would contribute to doing so without drawing on the sizeable budgets currently needed to manage small boat arrivals.

And if it were true, as some would have you believe, that they are here for an ‘easy’ life (instead of fleeing from hostile governments to save their lives) then the sink or swim necessity of work would soon ensure the departure of those who really don’t want the hard graft.

Let us be very honest. If it is just about economic migration (which I don’t believe to be the case) then Britain could do an awful lot worse than having eloquent migrants such as this man interviewed at an Epping hotel in the workforce.

I don’t think that I have ever knowingly agreed with a Green Party policy in my life but a couple of days ago I saw the following post on X (as part of the party’s wider policy towards refugees):

 

The party has a serious point, whether they are approaching it from the same perspective as me I do not know, but public spending needs reducing, productivity needs improving, as a country we must continue to welcome immigrants who can make a productive contribution, and to deter those who wish to rely on the state.

What’s more it is an approach that has been adopted in other countries, admittedly with varying degrees of success.

I may be wrong but would suggest that there is a serious debate to be had based not on fear but rationality.

It is easy to arrive at a populist approach, but is it the right one? It’s time for a serious debate on whether irregular economic migrants should be given the right to work.