Mahmood’s ‘Reform-lite’ migrant crackdown was nonsense, top economist claims

Shabana Mahmood’s immigration clampdown has been condemned by a top economist as a Reform-lite policy which has left the home secretary “completely tied up in knots” due to her subsequent climbdown.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday, the home secretary scaled back her plans to make foreign care workers wait up to 15 years for permanent settlement, saying those earning over £25,000 a year would now only have to wait five years.

High-earning foreign workers will also be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after five years - but most other migrants will still have to wait 10 years.

Ms Mahmood’s changes to the scheme came following signficant opposition from campaigners, as well as dozens of Labour MPs.

There was also a dispute over a £10 billion cost-saving figure over care workers as part of the initial plan used by the home secretary.

Jonathan Portes, a former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, claimed the figure was “nonsense” and “misleading” as it did not consider that migrants would still seek permanent settlement 10 years later – and still being able to claim pensions and health support.

Instead, he said the true savings would be £575m – 6 per cent of the Home Office’s estimate.

Ms Mahmood faced further concerns after fresh analysis showed migrants due to settle in the UK were set to make a net lifetime contribution of around £115 billion through the taxes they pay. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) figures included skilled workers who will now have to wait at least 10 years for settlement.

Mr Portes, who is now professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, claimed Ms Mahmood’s plan had backfired, with her changes likely to end up targeting the migrants who generate the most money for the public purse.

He said: “The government never had a convincing rationale for this policy except to a Reform-lite version of anti-immigration policies, and hence once they started to try and justify it on grounds of economics and cost the whole thing just collapses into complete incoherence.

“They're now implementing a sort of version of the policy, but it no longer has any rationale, either an economic rationale or a political rationale, because I think they've realised that trying to copy Reform is a losing game.”

He added: “It’s just bad, they’ve completely tied themselves up in knots on this.”

The IPPR has said that the change in policy to exempt care workers would be a “significant compromise”. Marley Morris, associate director for migration at the thinktank, also told The Independent that too-harsh government reforms on migration could deter high paid workers from coming to the UK.

He said: “Estimates suggest that on average each skilled worker contributes hundreds of thousands of pounds to the public finances over their lifetime, so even deterring a small number of them could have an outsized impact."

Earlier this year, Andy Burnham hinted he would ensure foreign care workers would be exempt from the rules as he praised the care given to his father. He told the Mirror: “I do want to make sure we get fairness in the rules in relation to people who came here in good faith, and made a commitment, I will make sure that we do that.”

A consultation on Ms Mahmood’s proposal received more than 200,000 responses.

Announcing the scheme on Monday, the home secretary also said she would introduce the plan for refugees who arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel by small boat to wait 20 years for settlement, rising to 30 years if they do not enter work or study.

She told the Commons “everyone will have a fair shot to make their contribution”, and accused the Conservatives of losing control of migration with “significant abuse of the care route”.

She said the government will be “providing a five-year path to settlement for care workers who lived up to the promise that they made on coming to this country – worked hard and answered our call when we needed them”.