As if the government’s “stop the boats” policy wasn’t already in disarray, now James Cleverly’s crackdown on legal migration is already unravelling.
In a move cynically timed to avoid a backlash from MPs, he has admitted he’s made a major climbdown on workers bringing family members from overseas to the UK.
When he announced plans in early December to cut legal migration by 300,000, he boasted it was “a crackdown on those who jump the queue to exploit our immigration system”.
One of his most controversial proposals was that from next spring only people earning more than £38,700 would be able to bring a family member from overseas, more than double the current £18,600.
The Cleverly climbdown comes after campaigners claimed the proposed threshold was “cruel and inhumane”, since it would split up families, and this week announced plans for legal action to overturn it.
It’s Mr Cleverly’s first climbdown as home secretary and was revealed just hours after he told guests at a Christmas reception: “I’m enjoying this much, much, much more than I was expecting.”
Is it the first of many retreats by Mr Cleverly on tackling migration, both legal and illegal? Almost certainly. After all, he faces a potentially bruising battle with right-wing Tory MPs over his Rwanda bill in the new year.
Advertisement
The Liberal Democrats called this climbdown a U-turn, which is not quite right because Mr Cleverly is not scrapping his proposed increase in the minimum income requirement altogether.
But the party’s pugnacious home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael was scathing, declaring: “You have to wonder who is in charge at the Home Office, or if anyone is.
“It was clear to everyone else that the raising of the earnings threshold was unworkable. This was yet another half-thought-through idea to placate the hardliners on their own backbenches.”
And in a reference to Denis Healey’s first law of politics, Mr Carmichael had this advice for the home secretary: “James Cleverly needs to put down the spade and stop digging.”
Labour’s Yvette Cooper says the climbdown is “more evidence of Tory chaos on immigration” and claims Mr Cleverly is “rowing back in a rush”. And it certainly looks like a hasty, panic retreat.
It’s also doubtful whether Mr Cleverly will heed Healey’s advice of when you’re in a hole, stop digging, however. He’s under massive political pressure from Tory MPs to curb legal migration and stop the boats.
But this sneaky attempt to avoid his backbenchers’ fury suggests he lacks the guts to announce his climbdown and face his Tory critics or opposition MPs in the House of Commons.
Mr Cleverly also told his party guests that being home secretary was a “massive adrenaline rush” and claimed he is a “success-orientated person”.
Really? After less than six weeks in the job, this climbdown is not a good start. In fact, it doesn’t look very Cleverly.
WazirX has been trying to get a restructuring plan through the Singapore High Court to start returning funds to users impacted by the $234 million hack in 2024.
“It’s an interesting moment,” was how one government source described the High Court ruling that will force an Essex hotel to be emptied of asylum seekers within weeks.
That may prove to be the understatement of the summer.
For clues as to why, just take a glance at what the Home Office’s own lawyer told the court on Tuesday.
Granting the injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”, the barrister said – pointing out that similar legal claims by other councils would “aggravate pressures on the asylum estate”.
Right on cue and just hours after the ruling came in, Broxbourne Council – over the border in Hertfordshire – posted online that it was urgently seeking legal advice with a view to taking similar court action.
The risks here are clear.
Image: Police officers ahead of a demonstration outside The Bell Hotel. Pic: PA
Recent figures show just over 30,000 asylum seekers being housed in hotels across the country.
If they start to empty out following a string of court claims, the Home Office will struggle to find alternative options.
After all, they are only in hotels because of a lack of other types of accommodation.
There are several caveats though.
This is just an interim injunction that will be heard in full in the autumn.
So the court could swing back in favour of the hotel chain – and by extension the Home Office.
Image: Protesters in Epping on 8 August. Pic: Reuters
We have been here before
Remember, this isn’t the first legal claim of this kind.
Other councils have tried to leverage the power of the courts to shut down asylum hotels, with varying degrees of success.
In 2022, Ipswich Borough Council failed to get an extension to an interim injunction to prevent migrants being sent to a Novotel in the town.
As in Epping, lawyers argued there had been a change in use under planning rules.
Image: The hotel has been the scene of regular protests. Pic: PA
But the judge eventually decided that the legal duty the Home Office has to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was more important.
So there may not be a direct read across from this case to other councils.
Home Office officials are emphasising this injunction was won on the grounds of planning laws rather than national issues such as public order, and as such, each case will be different.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
But government sources also smell dirty tricks from Epping Council and are suggesting that the Tory-led local authority made the legal claim for political reasons.
Pointing to the presence of several prominent Tory MPs in the Essex area – as well as the threat posed by Reform in the county – the question being posed is why this legal challenge was not brought when asylum seekers first started being sent to the hotel in 2020 during the Conservatives‘ time in government.
Epping Council would no doubt reject that and say recent disorder prompted them to act.
But that won’t stop the Tories and Reform of seizing on this as evidence of a failing approach from Labour.
So there are political risks for the government, yes, but it’s the practicalities that could flow from this ruling that pose the bigger danger.