Sue Lukes explores the roots and suggests some remedies

The government has made “Stop the boats” one of its five key pledges on which it wants to be judged going into the next general election. This follows its 2022 Nationality and Borders Act and its 2023 Illegal Migration Act, although significant elements of both Acts have yet to be implemented.

The latter in particular is little more than propaganda, with many of its provisions in breach of international commitments. But it is designed to keep what the Tories hope will be a ‘wedge issue’ in the public eye. If fully implemented, it is estimated that in the first three years it would mean around 250,000 people put into limbo, with no chance of long-term leave to remain, let alone citizenship. They would be denied the chance to apply for asylum or help to escape modern slavery. They would not be allowed to work, and therefore dependent on the Home Office to provide substandard accommodation and support, while being under permanent threat of deportation to Rwanda or permanent detention, children included.

The ‘small boats crisis’ is one entirely of the government’s own making. In 2022, 45% of asylum seekers had to enter Britain by small boats for the simple reason that other, safer routes have been systematically shut down by the Home Office.

Behind ministers’ rhetoric about people traffickers and exploitation lie some stubborn facts: last year, overall, 76% of asylum seekers were granted refugee status by the Home Office initially and, of the remaining 24%, 43% were granted international protection on appeal.  Some 98% of Afghan applicants, 99% of Syrian applicants and 100% of Eritrean applicants were successful in their application.

The reality is that the Home Office is in chaos. Issues arising from the Windrush scandal have still not been resolved, although the team tasked with transforming the department in its aftermath has just been formally disbanded. This week the inquiry into the Brook House detention centre identified 19 instances of mistreatment, including:

•             Inappropriate use of force against ten detainees

•             Forcibly moving detainees while naked or near-naked

•             Unnecessary pain used on four detainees

•             Dangerous restraint techniques used on four detainees

•             Use of inappropriate and humiliating comments against two detainees during suicide attempts

•             Homophobic comments against one detainee

•             Initially failing to help a detainee after a suicide attempt

Inquiry Chair Kate Eves said: “Brook House was not sufficiently decent, secure or caring for detained people or its staff at a time when these events took place.” She said it was “entirely unsuitable for detaining people for anything other than a short period of time.”

The government’s ‘othering’ of migrants is partly perpetuated by its regime of accommodation in unsuitable hotels, quasi-detention in disused military bases and unsafe barges, as well as actual detention, which it proposes to expand. But it is happening at a time when migration as an electoral issue is declining in salience. Most voters now regard immigration as an economic benefit – and a cultural one too. In short, immigration is good for our national life.

Some of the Home Office’s problems are a direct consequence of Brexit. We should not forget that EU free movement was not only important for the UK labour market, but it also ensured that people who arrived to work had rights.  Of course, Tory governments failed to ensure proper regulation and control of employers and landlords, which facilitated abuses. 

But now people arrive to do the same jobs on limited time work visas, which puts them at the mercy of employers, and government demonization means it’s easier for landlords to evict migrants or house them in unsafe accommodation. It also makes it easier for migrants to be employed in the informal economy without the minimum wage or other protection afforded to most workers.

It also passes the issue on to local authorities, which have to deal with the homelessness, threats to community cohesion, disrupted education and public health problems resulting from the government’s inhumane policies.

Local authorities can and should respond by defending their migrant residents. One way to do this is  establishing designated Migrant Champions, who can be a point of contact for migrant communities, ensure that access to the services they need is accessible, and help local authorities to challenge and hold central government to account.

The treatment of migrants is so interconnected with all areas of policy that it is actually in the best interests of councils to do this. For example, governments often try out housing and benefit restrictions on migrants first before rolling them out against others, as with regulations on benefits conditionality and housing homeless people in the private rented sector.

The Labour front bench too needs to wake up to the fact that government policy on migrants is increasingly unpopular. Trying to outflank the Tories on how tough you can be on immigration is not only a betrayal of Labour values: it’s also a vote loser.

Labour needs to restore compliance with international human rights norms to its migration policy. A future Labour government must repeal all asylum legislation that breaches international law. It should recognise the benefits that migration has brought to the UK and work with experts and NGOs to devise an asylum system which complies with international law. Labour Hub is circulating a Party Conference motion on these lines.

Additionally, it should put a 28 day limit on detention, as recommended by the Brook House inquiry. Above all, Labour needs to work with local authorities and resource them to help integration and cohesion – and to impose controls on exploitative landlords and employers.  In Europe city leaders talk of “realising the migrant advantage”.  Attracting migrants is a symptom of success, and investing in good policies and services means that cities can take full advantage of the skills and experiences that migrants bring. 

The Ukrainian scheme shows what can be done with a degree of political will. Over 170,000 people have arrived safely because they could apply for visas from outside the UK to come here for protection – unlike asylum seekers who have to get to the UK however they can to apply to stay. It’s scandalous that the government won’t make a similar effort to help people fleeing the war in Sudan – which reinforces the suspicion that government policy is shaped by racial considerations. Failure to confront this and establish a principled and humane approach can only fuel the far right, as the experience of some countries in mainland Europe underlines.

Sue Lukes was an Islington Labour Councillor from 2018 to 2022 and is a writer and consultant on migration issues.

Meeting

Resisting the far right in our communities – Learnings for local councillors

On Tuesday 26^th September, at 6pm, councillors can join a free online event run by the Migrant Champions Network, to learn more about how they can resist the rise of far right opposition to asylum seekers. Speakers:

Michelle Hall, the mayor of Drogheda, who will share learnings from Irish councillors who have been successfully resisting the far right;

Misbah Malik, Senior Policy and Engagement Officer at HOPE not Hate, an organisation with a wealth of experience in standing up to the far right;

Nicola David, a campaigner who has been resisting large-scale accommodation sites like the Bibby Stockholm barge.

There will be plenty of time for questions and discussion, where councillors can share the issues they are facing within their own contexts.

Image: c/o Mike Phipps