Christopher Howarth, who works for the European Research Group, is a former Parliamentary candidate, special adviser, and author of a forthcoming political thriller The Durian Pact, based on his time in politics.
There is little accountability in modern British politics.
How else could one explain the regular appearances of Alistair Campbell as a ‘respected’ commentator? No British politician has been held to account for our obvious failings in Iraq and for dragging out a futile war in Afghanistan over many administrations. The Covid inquiry will no doubt run into the sands providing few insights. The Conservative ministers and MPs whose intellectual failures allowed the EU to run rings around them on Brexit are all in the House of Lords.
Was it always thus? Walk through Westminster Hall and you will see a brass plaque to commemorate the Trial of Warren Hastings – an eight-year trial that decided the future direction of British India. Similarly, the Franks Report into Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands did set out government failings. Nowadays Parliament appears far too busy investigating the use of stationery to hold MPs responsible for the big calls they got wrong.
Which brings me to immigration. Tony Blair, in a characteristic show of chutzpah, has criticised the Conservative record on immigration while arguing for tougher controls. “There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents”, and so on. He is right to do so. But for a decade in power, he was very, very wrong.
Who is to blame for the current record immigration numbers? Over 14 years the Conservatives promised to reduce immigration on numerous occasions and won elections on that basis. But as soon as the votes were banked the pledges were forgotten. That has reduced trust in the Conservative Party and our democracy more widely.
Firstly, in 2010 we had David Cameron’s pledge of “tens of thousands” (net), yet never got close. He was hampered by the UK’s requirement to follow EU free movement.
While immigration was only one issue in the Brexit referendum it is hard to interpret it as anything but a further mandate to reduce immigration. In 2017 the Conservatives again promised “that immigration should be controlled and reduced, because when immigration is too fast and too high, it is difficult to build a cohesive society.”
Yet Sajid Javid, as Home Secretary in 2018, was doing the precise opposite. Setting out a new ‘skilled-based’ immigration system that included three of the key failings that led to the huge expansion in immigration a few years later. He recommended:
- “As recommended by the MAC, we will not impose a cap on the number of skilled workers”
- “The MAC recommended retaining the minimum salary threshold at £30,000 and we will engage businesses and employers as to what salary threshold should be set.”
- “We propose to allow individuals who meet the requirements to bring dependants, extend their stay and switch to other routes, and in some cases, settle permanently.”
The system as set out was unlimited, dependent on a salary threshold set far too low, with the explicit promise (carried out) to let businesses alone lobby to reduce it further. The key thinking is not made by politicians but outsourced to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). The course was set for the crushing election defeat the Conservatives suffered six years later.
It would be unfair to blame Javid alone for the political and economic disaster that was the Conservatives’ immigration policy. He had Caroline Noakes, as an Immigration Minister who attended Cabinet, who would have been key to designing the policy yet was an unlikely choice for the role if controlling migration was the aim.
But Javid and Noakes do not deserve all the blame. The problem was more systemic. In 2019 we had a new Prime Minister in Boris Johnson and a new manifesto commitment promising “An Australian-style points-based system to control immigration” which would lead to “fewer lower-skilled migrants and overall numbers will come down.”
Yet the system waiting to come in was always going to expand rather than reduce immigration. Yes, some levers could be pulled to reduce migration, but they had been handed out of political control to a group of left-wing academics.
But that was not the whole reason for the failure. The real failure in immigration policy is one of structure. The Home Office is in charge of visas (and gets the blame for the numbers), yet they are not actually in charge of immigration policy. Nobody is. What we have is a collection of competing ministers arguing in silos for their departments.
We had Chancellors arguing for more immigration to produce ‘growth’, Health Secretaries demanding more visas to cover up departmental failings in training and recruitment, with an ever-vigilant Treasury unwilling to release funds to pay or train NHS staff.
Defra ministers argued for Agriculture visas, business for more business visas, Johnson’s brother and others in the university-industry argued for graduate visas, and the MOD and FCDO Ministers announced Ukrainian, Hong Kong, and Afghan visas. Layered on top of that is a traditionally liberal policy to allow dependents of visa holders to tag along. Unsurprisingly, you get an exponential curve.
In late 2022, as a short-serving Home Office SpAd, I tried to ring the alarm bell as the immigration numbers went skyward. But nobody was interested. The few who even engaged with the topic thought a focus on tackling illegal migration would be enough, yet Conservative MPs simultaneously refused to countenance touching the Human Rights Act. The miraculous delivery of the innovative Rwanda scheme designed to deal with illegal migration was always going to take time.
Who in Cabinet should have raised questions about the rising migration figures and the ability of the Government and British society to cope? The Home Office ministers would traditionally say no to these demands, ask the hard questions, and be overruled. Maybe the Communities Department should have raised issues of housing and community cohesion. If they ever did so it was unheard. Why were the NHS and the Treasury allowed to think in isolation from any wider considerations?
Logically, where there is an issue that cuts across departments the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office should have taken a lead on policy or supported the Home Office. Sadly, Johnson was otherwise distracted during this period. But it’s unclear whether he took the issue seriously in the first place.
When Ukraine came along and the Cabinet decided to offer visas, it was the Home Office that had to point out, as it does, that there was no accommodation. DCLG refused responsibility, hence out of desperation the ‘Homes for Ukraine’ initiative was launched. A good idea but it was not a long-term housing solution.
There was a certain complacent belief that Brexit had neutered immigration as an issue and that ‘control’ was all that was needed. That ignored that, for ordinary people, control meant reducing numbers and thought that was what they had got.
Which brings me to the need for accountability. If we are not honest as to what went wrong we will repeat the mistakes. We can promise to reduce immigration but we need a policy structure that will deliver. A cross-government policy that looks at training, housing, the law, and all sides of the problem. This is a discussion the leadership contenders should take up. But do any of the contenders share the blame for the explosion in numbers?
Of the four remaining contenders, three were Home Office Ministers during the period of immigration expansion. Only Kemi Badenoch was not. Yet not being in the Home Office is not a free pass as migration was driven by decisions in other departments and MPs in Parliament arguing for it.
I know from experience that the Home Office did try to raise the salary threshold from the absurdly low £26,200 and was blocked by Rishi Sunak, then the Chancellor. Likewise, similar attempts to reduce the NHS’ dependence on visas were by the Health Department and Treasury fearing an extra training and wage Bill – a short-sighted and false calculation. Did these decisions get to Cabinet? Did they even get to the Ministers concerned?
A Prime Minister with an eye on the politics and bigger picture might have intervened to impose a government policy. Sadly, Johnson and his advisers were not interested in migration, still less his successors.
Which leads us to a political trust problem. We can and should come up with a cross-government immigration policy that tackles all the issues, training, fairness, and housing. But would this be believed after decades of broken promises?
Only one of the leadership contenders voiced concerns at the time – that was Robert Jenrick, by resigning. As for the Ministers responsible? Is there any chance of some more brass plaques in Westminster Hall?
