Sajid Javid is a wise choice for home secretary, but it will take more than a change in personnel to fix our longstanding issues around migration

Amber Rudd’s fall from grace was painfully drawn out. On Sunday she finally resigned over the specific question of how much she knew about targets for the removal of illegal immigrants. However, pressure on the former home secretary had been building for days. Now she has gone, it is vital that broader concerns over government immigration policy are not forgotten just because there is a new hand on the home office tiller.

The prime minister’s decision to appoint Sajid Javid is both sensible and canny. Having entered parliament in 2010, he was among the first of that intake to become a parliamentary private secretary. He made a strong impression at the Treasury under George Osborne and in 2014 he was appointed to the cabinet as secretary of state for culture, media and sport – the first of three cabinet positions he has filled to generally positive reviews. In other words, he is an experienced operator who knows how to get his head round a ministerial brief.

Mr Javid’s background as the Rochdale-born son of a Pakistani immigrant is helpful for the prime minister from a presentational point of view too. As he made clear in interviews over the weekend, he had been left dismayed by the Windrush revelations partly because they felt personal. His parents may have originated from a different part of the world, but their arrival in the UK was otherwise similar to those who came from the Caribbean.

As he so succinctly put it: “When I heard about the Windrush issue I thought, that could be my mum, it could be my dad ... it could be me.” Such a personal connection to the immigration issue offers Mr Javid a potential level of insight that Ms Rudd could never match. That is no fault of Ms Rudd’s; but in the current climate it ought to be beneficial to her replacement, who becomes the first BAME holder of one of the four great offices of state.

However, in the long run, the government’s response to the Windrush scandal will be judged by a shift in policy, not a change of personnel.

Addressing the House of Commons on Monday afternoon, Mr Javid certainly struck the right tone, dismissing the use of the “hostile environment” phraseology which has come back to bite the government in recent weeks. He is right to assert that this phrase doesn’t – or at least shouldn’t – “represent the values of our country”.

Still, as Labour’s Diane Abbott was quick to point out, good words will only go so far to reassure those who have been on the hard end of past Home Office hostility. Any who have been wrongly threatened with deportation or otherwise forced unnecessarily to prove their status should receive an immediate apology, and be compensated where applicable. The Windrush generation were invited here as British citizens and it remains unconscionable that they have been treated so appallingly.

What’s more, the treatment of the Windrush cohort is only a symptom of a wider problem, which is the aggressive attitude of successive governments towards immigration per se.

Ever since 2010, when David Cameron promised to limit net immigration to tens of thousands per year, the issue has been one of the dominant themes in British politics, reaching its nadir during the EU referendum campaigns. The debacle that brought Ms Rudd low this weekend is very much an example of chickens coming home to roost. It should be noted that The Independent has long urged ministers to end immigration targets.

The government may argue that the “hostile environment” attitude was a direct response to the British public swinging against immigration in the years prior to 2010. That is, in any event, a simplistic interpretation of public opinion. But it also points to a truism that politicians are increasingly afraid of explaining in honest terms why something that part of the electorate distrusts may in fact be a good thing.

In the context of immigration, we should have heard much more about the remarkable service the Windrush generation have given to the UK. But we should have heard too about the economic and social benefits that Britain has gained from EU migration. And what about the extent which the NHS relies on nurses from the Philippines? There are plenty of other examples too.

Similarly, debates in 2015 about the extent to which Britain should offer refuge to those fleeing wars in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East were largely characterised by scare stories. Where were the expositions from ministers about why the UK, acting compassionately, had a moral obligation to assist those who needed our help the most – and could in turn have benefited hugely from the skills brought by grateful incomers?

If Mr Javid really wants to get a grip on his department, he must tackle not only the Windrush scandal but also the nativist attitudes that are prevalent among some of his colleagues and that threaten to mire Britain in a sea of introspection and nostalgia long after Brexit has come and gone. Indeed, the new home secretary might consider that there is much to be gained by creating a “hostile environment” for nativism.