Announcing the government’s long-awaited white paper on immigration, the prime minister said that every area of what he called a “broken system” would be tightened up, in “a clean break from the past”. Enforcement, he said, would be “tougher than ever”, asserting that “migration will fall”. Sir Keir Starmer’s language chimed with weekend headlines about a “crackdown” – a shorthand description that surely displeased few in government, given the centrality of migration as an issue at the recent elections.
How far the white paper will go towards allaying what are now mainstream concerns about the level of migration – net migration stood at 728,000 last year – and how far what is proposed will actually reduce immigration must await its publication and a careful reading of exactly what forms the touted “crackdown” will take. But the provisions as summarised by the home secretary during her round of the Sunday talk shows suggested that they could fall quite short of what some immigration “hawks” expect. Nor may a more modulated approach, of itself, be a bad thing – in practical and ethical terms, that is, as opposed to any effect the government might hope for in terms of its political fortunes.
It would appear that the government will eschew specific targets. Yvette Cooper mentioned a “substantial reduction”, noting that there could be “as many as 50,000 fewer” lower-skilled care worker visas granted this year. But she also hinted that new limits on visas for so-called shortage sectors, such as construction and care workers, could be subject to temporary delay, while provision for training UK workers was stepped up.
Much else also sounds pretty familiar. Those wanting to import labour will have to show they are doing more to train – in Sir Keir’s words – “our young people”. But we have been here, or somewhere near here, before, to no great effect. Education levels and standards of English are to be raised for those applying for skilled work visas. Requiring English skills of dependants could be a positive step, but we will have to see how this and any new requirements are actually enforced. Foreign nationals convicted of a crime will be reported to the Home Office even if they are not subject to a prison sentence and will be liable to deportation. Given the extent to which foreign prisoners escape deportation, even if this was stipulated as part of their sentence, some scepticism might be in order.
Some nationalities will also be more equal than others, as applicants judged more likely to overstay, abuse their entry conditions or seek asylum as their visa expires will face more stringent checks. This could create diplomatic problems, as well as prompting claims of discrimination. There is a lot of presentation here, designed to address the particular concerns of an ever more doubting public.
One proposed change could have a quantifiable effect, as well as helping to reassure that doubting public. The white paper is expected to propose clearer guidance to judges on the application of human rights provisions; on, say, how “family life” is defined, and what weight is given to such considerations by UK judges, who sometimes seem more generous to an appellant than their continental counterparts might be. If there is a path to be steered that allows the UK to remain in the European Convention on Human Rights, while also reassuring the public that their interests are protected, that could be a useful gain.
Elsewhere, the proposed “tightening up”, if it is to have any significant effect, is almost bound to prompt resistance on the part of the same influential interests that have managed to face down efforts to curb migration in the past: employers accustomed to cheap, or cheaper, labour and ducking out of undertakings to train local workers; universities, whose financial model demands ever more overseas students (or rather, their fees), and above all, the care sector that will – not unreasonably – ask where their workforce is to come from and how the proposed “fair pay” pledge can be met by already hard-pressed local authorities and self-funding individuals without substantial extra help from the Exchequer.
When the home secretary says there are 10,000 care workers on visas but not in jobs who should be taken on before further resort to foreign recruitment, she is right. But even those currently jobless 10,000 will be nothing like enough.
For some, to be sure, fury with the failure of successive governments to honour their effusive promises to “take control” will mean that nothing short of Trump-style mass deportations will be enough. Taking, as we do, a more generous view of migration – what with the genuine need of some sectors for foreign labour and the equally genuine need of refugees for a place of safety – a first impression of the government’s proposals is that their bark may be worse than their bite, and deliberately so. But also that elastic timelines may allow exploitation, especially in the care sector, to continue.
Also conspicuously absent in the run-up to the white paper has been any mention of what new efforts might be made to reduce irregular migration. The Channel crossings, in particular, may account for a relatively small part of the migration numbers, but they provoke enormous public disquiet, along with the bill for “migrant hotels”. Is it a belated recognition of the real difficulties this presents that we have been hearing a lot less about “smashing the gangs”?
If the proposed legislation seems shorter on bombast and ambition when it actually appears than the prime minister’s fierce admonitions, then that could be a positive sign. It is in Sir Keir Starmer’s interests as prime minister, in the interests of credible government, and in the interests of the country that no new gap is allowed to open up between the rhetoric about migration and the reality.
