Boris Johnson should remember that an immigration points system must follow the evidence

Editorial: Any proposal should pay attention to the evidence of the benefits of immigration

The Independent has always argued that immigration policy should be decided by the evidence, even when this appears to contradict public opinion. But we would also argue that public opinion is not as uniformly hostile as it can appear.

Boris Johnson should bear this in mind as he considers the Migration Advisory Committee report on a points system for post-Brexit immigration control.

The committee’s recommendations are advisory – hence its name – but it would be foolish of the prime minister to ignore them. Indeed, it was foolish of Mr Johnson to refuse to renew the term of the committee’s chair, Professor Alan Manning, in what appears to be a classic case of shooting the messenger.

Mr Johnson made great play of the slogan “an Australian-style points-based system” in the election campaign, and here is an independent and credible analysis of what that might mean in practice.

The headline finding is that the salary threshold for skilled immigrants should be cut from £30,000 to £25,600. This is common sense. The evidence suggests that immigration has not had, overall, a downward effect on UK wages, even if public opinion assumes that it has. However, the debate should be allayed by setting the threshold at a reasonable level.

For example, opinion research carried out by ICM for the think tank British Future suggested that most people think a salary threshold is not important in deciding how many points a potential immigrant might be awarded. But 63 per cent of people thought that “high” points should be awarded for “high skill”, and 61 per cent said they should be awarded for jobs “needed by the NHS”.

People are less likely to think that having a job offer should earn high points (named by 41 per cent), which suggests that the government could consider some flexibility on this point. Ministers will note that the British Chambers of Commerce, for example, argues that the points system should allow in skilled workers without a job offer.

As Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, commented on its research: “Most people are ‘balancers’ on immigration, wanting to secure its benefits and manage its pressures.”

Not only should a good immigration policy pay attention to the evidence of the benefit of immigration to the wellbeing and prosperity of all British citizens, it should also pay attention to the evidence about the state of public opinion on the subject. Overwhelmingly, we would argue, the British people take a tolerant and pragmatic view: they want a system that is fair to all potential immigrants, wherever they come from, and which balances the pressures of large net numbers coming in against the dynamism of the British economy.

It is notable that popular concern about immigration has fallen since the referendum vote to leave the European Union: this suggests that, as long as people feel that they can decide fair rules of immigration for themselves, through their government, they are not opposed to significant numbers coming to the UK to make a productive contribution.

The Migration Advisory Committee report is a good start at striking that balance, and Mr Johnson should pay close attention to the economic evidence, but also to the evidence of the true state of tolerant and pragmatic public opinion.