Enver Solomon is Chief Exective of the Refugee Council.
Last week the Illegal Migration Act became law. While there was some much-needed scrutiny and attempts at amendments by Members of the House of Lords from all parties, it left Parliament pretty much unscathed.
Now the Government will have to show its new flagship legislation will deliver. It’s very easy to put “stop the boats” on the front of a podium – it’s much harder to actually do it.
But while the Prime Minister may tweet about his “plan”, there is no credible plan for how to implement this legislation.
Throughout the passage of the Act, Ministers stuck to the mantra that the legislation will mean people who arrived on small boats will be locked up and then swiftly removed from the UK.
Time and time again, Ministers refused to answer basic questions about where people are going to be detained, where they’re going to be removed, what will happen to all those people who can’t be removed but whose asylum claims won’t be processed in the UK, and how much all of this will cost.
They didn’t answer because there are no answers.
Even if the Government is successful in the Supreme Court later this year, the Rwanda plan will only ever see a very small percentage of the 45,000 or so people who are likely to cross the channel in the next year removed.
And with no prospect of returning refugees to war-torn countries like Afghanistan or Sudan, a significant number of people will end up being detained or accommodated in the UK. They will be in a state of limbo and at risk of disappearing.
When this is put to officials in local or central government, they shrug and don’t deny it. Councils will be left to pick up the pieces as vulnerable people vanish into the margins of society. Some will inevitably end up in the criminal underworld.
Living in limbo, unable to work, and facing destitution, those who don’t disappear will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely. This will come at a huge cost – we estimate about £9 billion will be spent over three years locking up refugees in detention centres and accommodating people who can’t be removed to other countries.
Ministers have been quick to try and paint any opposition to the Act as akin to being on the side of the criminal gangs who profit from people taking dangerous journeys.
The Refugee Council, my organisation, will continue to oppose this legislation both because we think it’s a stain on this country’s record of supporting those in need, and because it will do nothing to reduce the number of boats.
We have an alternative that’s based in reality and that we believe will actually address the reasons why men, women, and children put their lives at risk crossing the busiest shipping lane in the world.
Key to our plan is giving people alternatives to small boats by providing safe routes to reach the UK, including through piloting a refugee visa. The scheme set up for Ukrainians has allowed 200,000 people to apply for a visa – but nothing similar is available to those fleeing the conflict in Sudan or trying to escape the Taliban.
We propose introducing a year-long pilot visa process that allows people to apply for permission to travel to the UK in order to claim asylum. This should focus on those nationalities most likely to cross the Channel and also with high asylum grant rates – Afghans, Iranians, Syrians, Eritreans, and Sudanese. The pilot should aim to issue 10,000 visas for the first year while the process is worked through.
There also needs to be more meaningful cooperation between the French Government and the European Union. This includes getting a deal that allows the UK to send back people who come to the UK having already applied for asylum in an EU member state. But the UK also needs to be willing to give something as part of that deal, starting with agreeing that people with family members in the UK should be able to be safely transferred here.
And the UK needs to run a fair and efficient asylum system. There is no reason why more than 150,000 people should be waiting for a decision on their claim, or why 50,000 people need to be accommodated in hotels. It’s a waste of money and of peoples’ lives.
A functioning asylum system that makes timely good quality decisions is vital. The Illegal Migration Act will shut down the asylum system by indiscriminately refusing to consider the claim of anyone captured by it, no matter how strong or weak their claim may be or whether there is any prospect of them being removed from the UK. This, in effect, slams our door in the face of refugees.
There are no simple answers to the global challenge of people seeking safety. But there are choices.
The choice the Government has made with the Illegal Migration Act will only make things worse at huge human and financial cost. The cost and chaos will simply continue. A different strategy is needed that will actually reduce the number of people taking dangerous journeys by providing more safe routes, resulting in meaningful international cooperation and making the asylum system fairer and more efficient.
Enver Solomon is Chief Exective of the Refugee Council.
Last week the Illegal Migration Act became law. While there was some much-needed scrutiny and attempts at amendments by Members of the House of Lords from all parties, it left Parliament pretty much unscathed.
Now the Government will have to show its new flagship legislation will deliver. It’s very easy to put “stop the boats” on the front of a podium – it’s much harder to actually do it.
But while the Prime Minister may tweet about his “plan”, there is no credible plan for how to implement this legislation.
Throughout the passage of the Act, Ministers stuck to the mantra that the legislation will mean people who arrived on small boats will be locked up and then swiftly removed from the UK.
Time and time again, Ministers refused to answer basic questions about where people are going to be detained, where they’re going to be removed, what will happen to all those people who can’t be removed but whose asylum claims won’t be processed in the UK, and how much all of this will cost.
They didn’t answer because there are no answers.
Even if the Government is successful in the Supreme Court later this year, the Rwanda plan will only ever see a very small percentage of the 45,000 or so people who are likely to cross the channel in the next year removed.
And with no prospect of returning refugees to war-torn countries like Afghanistan or Sudan, a significant number of people will end up being detained or accommodated in the UK. They will be in a state of limbo and at risk of disappearing.
When this is put to officials in local or central government, they shrug and don’t deny it. Councils will be left to pick up the pieces as vulnerable people vanish into the margins of society. Some will inevitably end up in the criminal underworld.
Living in limbo, unable to work, and facing destitution, those who don’t disappear will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely. This will come at a huge cost – we estimate about £9 billion will be spent over three years locking up refugees in detention centres and accommodating people who can’t be removed to other countries.
Ministers have been quick to try and paint any opposition to the Act as akin to being on the side of the criminal gangs who profit from people taking dangerous journeys.
The Refugee Council, my organisation, will continue to oppose this legislation both because we think it’s a stain on this country’s record of supporting those in need, and because it will do nothing to reduce the number of boats.
We have an alternative that’s based in reality and that we believe will actually address the reasons why men, women, and children put their lives at risk crossing the busiest shipping lane in the world.
Key to our plan is giving people alternatives to small boats by providing safe routes to reach the UK, including through piloting a refugee visa. The scheme set up for Ukrainians has allowed 200,000 people to apply for a visa – but nothing similar is available to those fleeing the conflict in Sudan or trying to escape the Taliban.
We propose introducing a year-long pilot visa process that allows people to apply for permission to travel to the UK in order to claim asylum. This should focus on those nationalities most likely to cross the Channel and also with high asylum grant rates – Afghans, Iranians, Syrians, Eritreans, and Sudanese. The pilot should aim to issue 10,000 visas for the first year while the process is worked through.
There also needs to be more meaningful cooperation between the French Government and the European Union. This includes getting a deal that allows the UK to send back people who come to the UK having already applied for asylum in an EU member state. But the UK also needs to be willing to give something as part of that deal, starting with agreeing that people with family members in the UK should be able to be safely transferred here.
And the UK needs to run a fair and efficient asylum system. There is no reason why more than 150,000 people should be waiting for a decision on their claim, or why 50,000 people need to be accommodated in hotels. It’s a waste of money and of peoples’ lives.
A functioning asylum system that makes timely good quality decisions is vital. The Illegal Migration Act will shut down the asylum system by indiscriminately refusing to consider the claim of anyone captured by it, no matter how strong or weak their claim may be or whether there is any prospect of them being removed from the UK. This, in effect, slams our door in the face of refugees.
There are no simple answers to the global challenge of people seeking safety. But there are choices.
The choice the Government has made with the Illegal Migration Act will only make things worse at huge human and financial cost. The cost and chaos will simply continue. A different strategy is needed that will actually reduce the number of people taking dangerous journeys by providing more safe routes, resulting in meaningful international cooperation and making the asylum system fairer and more efficient.