The Tory immigration system is broken – and these 10 new reasons prove it

From sitting on EU settlement scheme reports to ignoring its own guidance on asylum-seeking, there are more failings from the last few months alone than many realise

Related video: Priti Patel promised ‘review’ of immigration health surcharge (Getty)

With so much happening – not least growing concerns about the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic – other matters pale in significance. Yet, there have been some startling recent revelations about just how truly awful the Conservative Party’s hostile environment has become. Over the last few months, parliamentary questions have discovered the following:

1. As Covid-19 was coming to Britain, the government said it was ‘committed to increasing’ the immigration health surcharge

The comments were made on 15 January. The first Covid-19 case in the UK was confirmed two weeks later. Originally £200, the fee for non-EU citizens has trebled in a few years to £625 per year with a discount for students. The surcharge does not actually go towards increasing funding for the NHS, but to the Treasury instead. There is nothing extra to offset the added impact the surcharge was claimed to address at its launch.

With many NHS doctors and nurses affected by this surcharge, the government had been satisfied to allow these frontline key workers to pay extra – on top of paying full tax – for their right to access the critically important health services they provide. Only after considerable pressure, the home secretary relented, automatically extending visas waiving surcharge payments – but only between March and October, affecting about 3,000 (of 65,000 non-EU citizens working in the NHS).

Priti Patel has sparked anger by refusing to cut or axe the fees paid – just three weeks after promising to “review” the controversial charges. The immigration health surcharge is still due to soar from £400 a year to £624 from this October – to be extended to all EU citizens from next January, when Brexit is completed.

2. Net migration targets are almost a thing of the past

In the words of Kevin Foster, the new immigration minister, “the government is not in a numbers game in respect of net migration”. Awkwardly for the Tories, however, the 2019 manifesto they ran on promises to reduce overall migration. While the party abandoned promises about targets of tens of thousands, the general intent remains the same. But this is the first formal official confirmation its position is changing.

3. The hostile environment isn’t effective

It was reported that the government’s National Community Engagement teams were trying “to lure immigrants to advice sessions ... persuading them to leave the UK”. However, it turns out the Home Office kept no records of who showed up. Nor was there any evidence that immigrants who met with these teams lacked a right to remain in the UK. So not only is the hostile environment unethical, it is ineffective too.

4. The government has been making compensation payments to Windrush victims, but won’t tell us how much

While this information was promised to be released, the government is keeping quiet on how much it has begun paying out to Windrush victims. But we know payments, at least in part, are being made. Though the full extent of the issue isn’t yet clear, reports that a meagre 3 per cent of claimants have received compensation have come out in recent months. Full details on claims submitted, the number of claims paid and total amount has been promised for about a year.

5. The Home Office has no evidence it’s enforcing free movement limits

Like most freedoms, EU freedom of movement has limits. The UK deports EU nationals every year, but the Home Office keeps no records on whether this is ever for breaching treaty rights. Nor did it have any records of deporting EU nationals who lacked a criminal record, but who might have still breached their treaty rights. For a government that claimed it so desperately wanted to take back control of our borders, it continues to neglect through ignorance or choice its ability, if it wanted, to impose some restrictions on free movement. The (what I call) “free movement myth” is, well, a myth.

6. The government decided to sit on a report into the EU Settlement Scheme until after the election

The chief inspector of borders and immigration sent his report to the government in late September exposing problems and making recommendations. The government decided against publishing it until after the general election had concluded. This undoubtedly helped promote its narrative about how well the scheme was working with this in-depth report kept locked away from public scrutiny.

7. The use of landing cards was ended too quickly

The government admitted it had stopped using landing cards before completing a transition to a new digital system for managing arrivals was completed. This meant there was a known data gap about who was entering the country. This is picked up further in the government’s official (and much delayed) response to its landing card consultation. It acknowledges that it had received concerns (including from me) that there would be a loss of data until a new system was fully working and that “a number of responses“ indicated a preference to have no gap in the data collected. The government went ahead anyway.

8. Migrants granted asylum are subject to the two-child rule for universal credit

This means that those who are successful in their applications for asylum based on the persecution they are experiencing abroad are treated punitively if caring for three or more children. If this family has a right of asylum that is accepted, there must be proper support for their being welcomed to the community and becoming settled.

9. The Home Office admits mistakes in failing to follow its own guidance on asylum, but it has not reversed decisions

This relates to reports that the Home Office had, contrary to its guidelines, refused asylum applications by including quotations from religious texts to test migrants. Yet despite admitting its failures in multiple cases, there is no evidence it has overturned a single case subsequently. It may give an impression that the conclusion reached may be more important than the supporting reasons or evidence behind it – and, no doubt, buoyed by facts like half of immigration appeals succeeding.

10. Only migrants with claims for asylum in the Home Office’s system by year’s end will be considered for family reunion cases

This refers to the Dublin Regulation, an agreement between EU countries which the UK will exit after 31 December 2020 unless a new agreement is reached. Since it can take more than a few days to become entered onto the official system, there may be many cases of migrants making claims while the UK is still in the EU but not granted their full rights.

***

The UK continues to battle the current pandemic and most attention is rightly directed towards public health. So it is easy to miss the continuing failures over immigration perpetuated by the government – and it has shown a remarkable ability to not learn from its many past mistakes. In these circumstances, it is all the more important that we do not lose sight that missing PPE targets are not the only problems of Boris Johnson’s government.

Hopes can only be raised by the Labour Party gaining a new leader in Keir Starmer, who was formerly a shadow immigration minister. I know he understands these issues as I have discussed many of them with him. With such a knowledgeable leader and experienced team, the government’s immigration policies are likely to be scrutinised in an evidence-based way like never before. This can only be welcome news after more than a decade of broken promises and counterproductive policies.

Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University and author of ‘Becoming British’ (Biteback, 2016)