How Priti Patel’s words could come back to haunt her

The home secretary’s decision not the scrap the surcharge for overseas NHS workers will be tough to explain and justify, writes Sean O’Grady, and could even prove to be her undoing

(AFP/Getty)

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all”.

Although Humpty Dumpty is yet to chair a Cobra meeting or one of the daily coronavirus media conferences, his words do have a certain Alice in Wonderland resonance, at least so far as the Home Office is concerned.

Having said – or appeared to say – a few weeks ago that the NHS levy for overseas workers in the NHS would be reviewed, home secretary Priti Patel says that they will not be changed or waived (beyond a previously announced waiver for those having their visas extended because of the pandemic).

At the Downing Street press conference on 25 April, Ms Patel stated: “I’ll be very clear, we have a range of measures that are, like most things in government, under review.”

On a generous reading, that would be taken to mean that, along with the health secretary (it is a joint policy area between departments), there was some possibility of relaxation. Hopes would have been heightened that the surcharge levied on the visas of foreign doctors, nurses and ancillary workers in the NHS would be relaxed, thanks to the effusive rhetoric from ministers about their outstanding contribution, putting their lives on the line and so on. It was not to be and therefore the upfront charge of £8,000 for a family of four on a five-year work permit will be imposed.

However, a policy being kept “under review” doesn’t necessarily mean it will be reviewed or, still less, be the subject of a capped-up Review of policy, let alone changed or abolished. Saying something is “under review” is a polite way of indicating it won’t in fact necessarily be properly reviewed or altered, if ministers decide they don’t want to. It leaves a little wriggle room in the case of, say, pressure from No 10, from the party or from the media. Plainly this did not happen with the NHS surcharge for NHS workers. Apart from the forced collectivisation of farms or abolition of the monarchy, say, any minister can say at any time that policies are under review.

Then again, by that token, a statement that something previously thought inviolable is now “under review” would be significant. It might even signal some radical adjustment in direction. So if Boris Johnson stated that the 31 December deadline for ending the Brexit transition period, now in law, was being kept “under review”, that would certainly stir things up.

Oddly enough, Ms Patel’s career is also “under review”, and not merely in the way all ministerial performances and appointments are under review, liable to change at prime ministerial whim. The cabinet office investigation into her behaviour and the parallel employment tribunal case are continuing, and neither has enhanced Ms Patel’s reputation. The Home Office is also finding the progress of the Immigration Bill heavy going, especially in how it categorises “unskilled” workers and those in the social care sector and other, now “key” workers in public transport and retail. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage is carrying out a one-man audit of the Border Force on the south coast of England.

So ministers may enjoy much power and many prerogatives, and very often can be masters of the meaning of their words. Then again, as Ms Patel has discovered before, we all know what happens if a secretary of state, like poor old Humpty, has a great fall...