We should have an immigration system that’s realistic rather than headline-grabbing

The Tory manifesto promises a ‘fair, firm and compassionate’ approach. The party has more work to do on the last point

It is no surprise that, as the general election campaign enters the home straight, the Conservatives are playing the immigration card. It echoes Vote Leave’s drive in the last week of the 2016 referendum campaign, when it made misleading claims – such as warning that Turkey would join the EU, which turned out to be a turkey itself. Several of Vote Leave’s key players work for Boris Johnson, who now wants to implement the Australian-style points-based system it promised in 2016.

It is meant to sound tough, when coupled with the ritual pledge to “take back control” of immigration after Brexit. The Tories hope it will appeal to working-class voters in the north and midlands, who may well decide Thursday’s election.

On closer inspection, the “new” approach is more of a slogan than a detailed policy, and rather similar to the existing tier-based one. Three groups could apply to enter Britain: migrants with “exceptional talent”; skilled workers who would require a job offer as well a specified number of points; and those in lower-skilled sectors, who could enter only if there were labour shortages in that industry. Visas in this last category would be time-limited, probably up to five years, and “will typically not lead to settlement”.

Despite headlines about a crackdown on unskilled migration after Brexit, the new system would be more flexible than the Tories’ regime since 2010. It would be tied more closely to the economy’s needs than the senseless, arbitrary target to reduce net migration to less than 100,000 a year set by David Cameron before the 2010 election. The Independent exposed its flaws in our Drop the Target campaign. We welcome the fact that Mr Johnson has now dropped it, and removed a counterproductive cap on high-skilled workers.

The prime minister has listened to sensible voices such as Bright Blue, the liberal conservative think tank, which called for a needs-based approach based on recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee. However, Bright Blue is right to warn that the committee will need reform “to ensure it is seen and trusted as properly independent of the Home Office”.

The Tory manifesto promises a “fair, firm and compassionate” approach. The party has more work to do on the last point. It could, for example, have adopted a more compassionate stance on family reunions. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants rightly warns that tying migrants so closely to employers, without the ability to move jobs, could allow exploitation and even encourage trafficking.

Mr Johnson, who describes himself as “not hostile to immigration”, is more in tune with the public than Theresa May and Mr Cameron on the issue: most people take a balanced view, recognising the benefits of immigration, as well as the pressures caused by it.

Mr Johnson has previously floated the idea of an amnesty for illegal migrants. No doubt that was deemed too hot for the manifesto to handle, though it avoids the usual Tory attacks on illegal immigration. If he remains in power, hopefully he will return to it.

First, there is an election to win. Mr Johnson told Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme he could guarantee that immigration would fall under his proposals, saying: “I can make sure that numbers will come down because we’ll be able to control the system in that way and what I don’t think is right is to have an uncontrolled and unlimited approach to that.”

His remarks are worrying. They suggest that, for all the talk of evidence-based policy, Mr Johnson would be tempted to manipulate the new system to avoid the damaging headlines about the immigration statistics that plagued Ms May and Mr Cameron. That would compound problems in sectors, including the NHS and social care, already suffering from a fall in EU migration since the 2016 referendum. Reducing low-skilled migration would also create problems in construction, hospitality and agriculture. Offering no real prospect of settlement could deter migrants from coming to do the jobs that many Britons do not want to take.

Mr Johnson’s much trumpeted points-based system must not become a headline-based system.