Why Reform won't fix immigration

Superficially, it looks like Reform has (at last) published a meaty policy paper. The party intends to terminate Indefinite Leave to Remain. Alas, we are no further forward in policy terms. The paper is almost entirely derivative padding with the actual policy response being a mere six paragraphs.

The basic position is that Reform will abolish ILR as an immigration category completely, meaning no new awards and those currently holding it will have it rescinded. Reform will replace ILR a with a 5-year renewable visa, subject to considerably stricter criteria, bringing the UK in line with comparators like the UAE. Anyone currently with ILR will need to reapply for visas that do not offer recourse to welfare. Requirements will include:

• Much higher salary thresholds (based on a verified job offer or averaged over the 5-year period in case of renewal), with the right to bring dependants tied to thresholds that will be above median UK earnings.

• Stricter rules around good character, covering deception (around their visa application), financial misconduct, tax compliance and criminal convictions, all of which will be more rigorously checked via biometric information.

• A much higher standard of English.

Alarmingly, though, they then say “There will also be an Acute Skills Shortage Visa available for those working in national critical sectors such as care”.

This is how we got into this mess to begin with. The Boriswave is a symptom of this mentality. The idea that we have no choice but to lean on immigration where there are skills/labour shortages. In this instance, we don’t have a skills shortage or a labour shortage. We have a incentives problem. If Reform wants to solve this part of the immigration problem then it needs to publish a fundamental overhaul of the care system.

This is where we have to get serious. We struggle to recruit people into care because it is a low wage, low prestige role with limited career prospects - for what is a physically and emotionally demanding job. When you can make more stacking shelves as the Co-op, nobody is lining up to do this kind of work, so you get private equity care homes importing random Africans to do the work, who treat it as a visa backdoor for them and their families, and they’re hired whether they’re qualified or not.

This is an important policy area to look at because the sector is rife with visa fraud and illegal working. It’s an open secret because there is no local authority enforcement or surveillance. It’s also important to look at because the lack of suitable care places is how we get discharge bottlenecks in hospitals - which is a big part of the NHS productivity problem.

What we have to do is take a second look at the working time directive, reduce reliance on agency staff and have proper full time salaried roles that reflect the seriousness of the job, rather than treating care workers as bottom rung dogsbodies. We need to ensure there is a viable career path, and incentives to stay in the industry.

This is where tied housing can help. Care workers should be prioritised for social housing and have their rents substantially discounted to offset lower salaries, thus ensuring longevity. We can sweeten the deal with enhanced right to buy. Recruitment and retention policy is key.

I seem to recall the SDP mooted a national care service. This could map army structures, with care platoons assigned to districts, with a formal ranking system to provide a career path and pathways to pay increases, with master-sergeant type specialist roles that can lead to upper management.

Secondly, we have to end the mentality of dumping granny on the council. Instead of carer benefits, we need to look at tax credits for people looking after elderly parents, to ensure that families play a greater role in care work (as it should be). That we wash our hands of our elderly is why the adult social care bill has skyrocketed in recent years.

If we are going to tackle this part of the immigration problem, then we need to completely rethink a lot of the underlying assumptions about the care and welfare system. The moment you make exceptions to immigration policy as Reform has, you will end up back where you started, with unlimited immigration to solve a never-ending problem.

As much as anything, home is the best environment for elderly care. Modern care homes are miserable places where people wait to die. There needs to be a greater emphasis on supported living rather than total care, institutionalising the elderly and turning them into zombies. District care has a role to play, but more must be done to enable downsizing into adapted homes and homes for later living.

As such, there is a housing policy dimension to solving this problem - which brings me back to the point I’ve been hammering for years now. If we’re going to get to the root of immigration problems we need a full spectrum of policies, each of which will have an immigration dimension.

Reversing the Boriswave is certainly a priority issue, but unless we make the necessary structural adjustments to housing and the welfare system, ending the reliance on imported labour, we’re only one Tory government away from another Boriswave. Since there is no longer a discernible difference between the Tories and Reform, it might even be Reform that does it.