For the past four years, I’ve recorded my criticisms and despair at the Tories’ increasingly outlandish and inhumane schemes to deal with small boat crossings and the so-called migrant ‘crisis’. Following the election, there is now a chance at last for an alternative, hopefully more compassionate, approach to refugees fleeing war zones and persecution.
One of new Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s first announcements after Labour was elected was to cancel the Rwanda deportation scheme. Much to my relief, Sir Keir confirmed that the proposal was “dead and buried”, arguing that it had “never been a deterrent”. More than 52,000 asylum seekers had been earmarked for deportation under the plans.
Former PM Rishi Sunak had made stopping the boats one of his key pledges. Clearly, his attempt to use Rwanda as a deterrent was futile, as over 13,000 migrants have already crossed the Channel this year.
New Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had previously promised not to send a single asylum seeker to Rwanda, and labelled the deal an “extortionately expensive gimmick”. The controversial agreement with Rwanda has cost the UK £240m so far, out of a projected £310m. Cooper is hoping to recoup this money from the Rwandan government, though this seems highly unlikely.
But what is Labour planning instead? And will it be better than the failed Conservative policies?
Labour’s plans for a new Border Security Command
Labour’s main approach is to focus on those responsible for the small boat crossings. The day after Starmer’s announcement, Home Secretary Cooper launched a new Border Security Command (BSC), which aims to “strengthen Britain’s border security and smash the criminal smuggling gangs.”
A Border Security Commander (yet to be appointed) will work with the police, the National Crime Agency and immigration forces to go after the people smugglers, who make millions out of refugees’ desperation to find a new life in Britain. Cooper also aims to work with Europol and European police forces to bring the gangs to justice. A projected £75m per year that would have gone into the Rwanda scheme will be diverted to establish the new BSC.
This is fighting talk, and pre-empts criticisms that Labour is ‘soft’ on Channel crossings.
The emphasis on stopping the smugglers is commendable, but the use of military language to describe the strategy makes me very uncomfortable.
Migration expert Zoe Gardner argues in Open Democracy that Labour’s ‘smash the gangs’ slogan is in essence very similar to the Conservatives’ ‘stop the boats’, and she criticises Labour’s lack of plans to create safe routes for migrants instead.
What else is in Labour’s migration strategy?
Gardner is also concerned that Starmer may be planning to send refugees to countries other than Rwanda. Looking in more detail at Labour’s manifesto certainly seems to confirm her worries and increase my own apprehension.
As well as prioritising “strong border security”, the manifesto states in bold: “A Labour government will…deliver a properly managed and controlled asylum system which returns people who have no right to be here” (my emphasis).
The manifesto adds that “a 1,000 strong Returns and Enforcement Unit” will be set up to “ensure failed asylum seekers and others with no right to be here are removed”. Even the laudatory aim to “end hotel use, clear the Tory asylum backlog” continues: “and speed up returns to safe countries.”
The manifesto does not commit to repealing the Illegal Migration Act, which has left asylum seekers in limbo, but at least it does aim to process the huge backlog of asylum applications. However, the emphasis on removing and returning ‘failed’ asylum seekers sounds like a continuation of the Tories’ punitive rhetoric towards refugees rather than a new approach.
Gardner thinks Labour’s plans are only “slightly less extreme” than what went before. In contrast, she points to the Lib Dems and Greens who both put scrapping the ‘hostile environment’ as their migration priorities.
Refugee groups call for a more compassionate approach
Just after the election result, hundreds of refugee and human rights organisations wrote to Starmer to urge him to take a different direction, “protecting people seeking safety rather than punishing them for political gain”.
As well as restoring the right to seek asylum, which Labour has promised, the groups’ demands include: open safe routes for refugees, in order to break the need to risk their lives in the Channel and reunite families; and house refugees in communities not camps.
Duncan McAuley, chief executive of Action Foundation, said: “There’s an urgent need for a sensible, humane approach [which] puts an end to the demonisation of people” seeking safety. Enver Solomon from the Refugee Council similarly urges Labour to “govern in a different language”: “the worst approach is Tory-lite”.
So can we be hopeful? In an encouraging speech to the European Political Community meeting on 18 July, Starmer promised to “repair ties” with the EU and made a point of contrasting his approach to that of the Conservatives, particularly in relation to migration and asylum seekers, stating:
““We are resetting our approach. This government will not commit taxpayer money to gimmicks. We will approach this issue with humanity and with a profound respect for international law, and that’s why we scrapped the unworkable Rwanda scheme on day one.”
Let’s hope he keeps his word. I for one will be keeping watch.
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER AND GIVE CITIZEN JOURNALISM A BOOST!
We publish a regular gazette that’s now available free to all our newsletter subscribers. Click on the image to access the Freeports Gazette edition and sign up to our mailing list via the button below!
Credit: Source link