Immigration into the UK is one of the most contentious political issues. The latest YouGov poll finds that, across all parties and social classes, it is seen as one of the three most important issues. And it is the most important issue for supporters of Reform UK. Although small boats form a tiny proportion of arrivals, and well over 90% of arrivals come with visas approved by the government, many people believe that immigration is out of control.
Some opponents fear social and cultural change and some are outright racists. Many of those will never be satisfied until immigration falls to zero. But for most people, the concerns are government failure to manage the flow and the implications for public services and housing. For them, greater transparency about who is coming and why, and a more public and honest debate about the needs and trade offs might alleviate the concerns. And polling regularly shows that while people say they want the numbers reduced, when asked about specific kinds of migration they are much more positive. Surveys by the Oxford Migration Observatory show that fewer than one in five people want to reduce the numbers of immigrants coming to work in the NHS, social care, farming or construction – which actually dominate the figures.
To try to defuse the tensions the Institute for Government has just launched a report on the subject this week with support from a group of think-tanks. They propose that the UK government should introduce an annual Migration Plan, to be published and debated in parliament. This would be a bit like the budget: a strategic, forward-looking framework to guide immigration policy. It could provide clarity, accountability and coherence to a system that has long lacked strategic oversight or public understanding.
Background and current challenges
The report points out that successive UK governments – of both parties – have failed to meet their own immigration targets. Despite pledges to reduce net migration, numbers have consistently hit record highs, only dipping in 2024 due to pandemic after-effects and the winding down of emergency humanitarian schemes for Ukrainians and Hongkongers. When governments promise control but shy away from defending or managing the systems they oversee, public confidence drains away.
Although Brexit has given the UK more control than it had as an EU member, neither Conservative nor Labour governments have used this control effectively. There is a continuing conflict between migration goals and broader governmental objectives like economic growth or public service capacity, both of which call for a continuing inflow of migrants. Poor policy design and incoherent processes within Whitehall have made it difficult for any government to manage immigration in a way that aligns with the UK’s broader national interests.
Other countries do it better
Other countries have better models to balance migration needs with strategic planning. Canada and Australia, for instance, conduct annual processes that align immigration targets with labour market requirements and demographic trends. New Zealand’s Residence Programme offers another example of integrated migration planning.
A similar approach in the UK would help government make difficult trade-offs transparently – balancing the needs of the economy, housing and public services against public concerns and political pressures.
What an AnnualMigration Plan should include
The report proposes six key components for a plan:
- Clear objectives: The plan should explain the government’s aims – ranging from broad principles to specific rules for managing migration.
- Multi-year planning: A rolling three-year plan with annual updates would reduce confusing, short-term decision-making.
- Migration data by route: It should provide a breakdown of migration levels by route – work, study, asylum, dependants, etc. and explain the drivers behind each.
- Cost-benefit analysis: Each migration route should be assessed for its economic, social and public service impacts.
- Forecasts and proposed changes: Anticipated changes to migration flows and policies should be outlined, with evidence-based justifications.
- Cross-government coordination: The plan should suggest broader policy shifts needed to support migration goals, such as skills training or public investment.
How to develop a plan
A transparent and robust process is just as important as the content. The plan should be prepared annually, led by the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, much like the budget or a spending review. Departments would submit long-term workforce and policy needs and be held accountable for them.
Independent bodies – like the Migration Advisory Committee, Skills England and the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council – should contribute data and analysis. Local leaders, devolved administrations, business and civil society should also be given avenues to participate, ensuring that the plan reflects a wide range of interests and expertise.
Ownership of the plan should rest jointly with the Home Office and Cabinet Office, ensuring integration across migration, economic and social policy.
Public debate and accountability
A published annual Migration Plan would allow for more meaningful parliamentary and public debate. Instead of knee-jerk reaction to quarterly net migration statistics or media headlines, the government could present its strategy proactively, defend its choices and adjust as needed.
The plan would be debated in Parliament and jointly scrutinised by select committees – mirroring how the national budget is handled. This would strengthen democratic oversight and elevate the quality of public discourse on migration.
In this way, an annual Migration Plan would replace ad-hoc, reactive policy-making with a structured, transparent approach that aligns immigration policy with the UK’s broader needs and values.
Time for action
Governments have historically avoided public debate on immigration, afraid of the potential for explosive responses and public protest. They have preferred to make unsustainable promises, based on arbitrary numbers, rather than the needs of the economy. And they have appeared to ignore the problems which immigration can generate. The toxic culture this creates has led to widespread disillusion with politics, and provided a seedbed for populism. It is time that the government grasped the nettle and made itself visibly accountable. This proposal would be a positive step, not only for immigration policy but for our democracy.
More from East Anglia Bylines
