With the new Labour government having already announced the establishment of a number of new quangos, we thought it would be a good idea to keep an eye on where our politicians are ceding power. That’s why each month, William Yarwood will update us with the most egregious examples of how arm’s length bodies are taking over our political life.
What is it and when was it set up?
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) was set up in 2007 under New Labour. It is sponsored by the Home Office, and exists to advise the government on migration issues and policy.
Why are we talking about it?
During the last general election, the former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced that if the Conservatives were re-elected they would introduce a cap on immigration. However, it was not the government who would decide on the cap, but the MAC. While elected politicians sitting in Parliament would get a vote on the cap, they would simply be voting on recommendations from the quango rather than deciding on it themselves. Due to this, the MAC, which is a relatively unknown quango, was brought into the limelight. With all four of the Conservative leadership contenders pledging to cut immigration if they were to win the next election, how they deal with this body will likely be crucial.
How is it funded?
Taxpayers fund the MAC via a budget set by the Home Office. According to their 2023 accounts, the quango overspent by £120,788 and looking back through the available accounts, the group has overspent consistently since 2021. This is despite its budget during that same time period having increased by 30%, from £900,000 to £1,180,000.
The MAC spends most of its budget on ‘secretariat salaries’, i.e., paying civil servants who work for the group. This racked up a bill of £1,202,329 in 2022-23. Professor Brian Bell, the head of economics at King’s College London’s business school, is the chair of MAC, and earns £40,000 per year for working two days a week on MAC business.
How does it function?
The MAC is a group of six: the chair, four independent members and a representative from the Home Office.
The quango cannot independently initiate a report or inquiry: it is the government who comes to the committee with a question pertaining to immigration. After a three to six month research period which includes calling for evidence, stakeholder engagement and data analysis, the MAC presents its findings, gives recommendations and then waits for the government to either accept or refuse these recommendations.
Regarding its scope, the MAC started off with a rather narrow brief dealing predominantly with the ‘shortage occupation list’, which essentially enables employers to advertise jobs to migrant workers. Over time, its remit has expanded considerably and now touches on all areas of immigration policy. It also conducts ‘stakeholder engagement’, which involves outreach to other government departments but also groups such as the Confederation of British Industry, businesses and unions.
How accountable is it to politicians?
The quango cannot operate or do any research without a direct request from the Home Office and, in turn, the Home Secretary. The MAC’s experts are publicly appointed in line with guidance published by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments which states that ministers are responsible for appointments, meaning that it will be Home Office ministers who appoint members of the MAC.
Does it deliver on its aims?
Since its aim is to produce independent research and policy suggestions when the government asks for them, the MAC is very effective. For example, the government commissioned the MAC to carry out a rapid review of the New Immigration Salary List and for it to be done by late February. The MAC complied and had the paper done within the timeframe. Furthermore, as Dr Martin Ruhs (a former member of the MAC) points out in an interview with the Migration Observatory, the government has accepted the majority of the group’s recommendations. So it is also highly influential, with a lot of the debate around migration policy centring on the MAC’s analysis.
What is the alternative?
The quango states that it ‘bases all recommendations on what it sees as being in the interests of the resident population’. Often the MAC has been at odds with ministers, recommending measures that would result in lower levels of migration than the policies ultimately pursued. On the other hand, at times the MAC appears to have suggested policies which would increase immigration, such as lowering the minimum income requirements for family visas. Such analysis is at odds with the views of much of the British public.
While the Home Office is, in principle, able to ignore the MAC’s recommendations, as noted, this is rare in practice. By outsourcing its judgement to a quango, the government has effectively created a democratic deficit in immigration policy. Rather than giving the MAC more power to set acceptable migration levels, a more democratic alternative would be to abolish the MAC and give immigration policy research back to the Home Office, so that the Home Secretary and, in turn, the Government can be more responsive to the public’s concerns on immigration.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
