There are moments in a political cycle that become defining on the back of issues dominating the headlines. Yesterday, having been reticent to speak out boldly on asylum, Keir Starmer drew a clear dividing line between his party and the government, making clear its proposed approach to people crossing the Channel in small boats.
He articulated his plans to treat people smugglers like terrorists and powerfully criticised the government, telling the Times that draconian government plans to expel anyone seeking safety on our shores to a so-called safe third country to have their asylum claim processed is “inhumane”. Under Labour, the right to asylum would be restored, he said, stating very clearly: “We have to process the claims.”
In a comment piece in the Sun, Starmer went one step further. “We won’t allow those fleeing war zones or persecution to be made scapegoats for government failure,” he wrote.
The comments were in stark contrast to the prime minister’s stance: Rishi Sunak has made stopping the boats a personal crusade and has gone further than any previous British prime minister by banning the right to asylum for those entering the UK “illegally”. The new Illegal Migration Act says that any man, woman or child seeking safety but entering in this way will be treated like human cargo and expelled to Rwanda, the government’s chosen destination. But following the appeal court’s ruling that the African state isn’t a safe place to send people seeking asylum, it’s now up to the supreme court to determine later this year if this can actually happen.
Meanwhile, Labour is emphasising its plans to rapidly clear the current backlog of more than 175,000 people and all additional backlogs they might inherit, as well as processing all future claims in a timely and efficient manner. As the UN refugee agency has advised, that means early triage to determine claims that are either manifestly well-founded or unfounded. And in a more eye-catching proposal, Labour says it will create new “Nightingale asylum courts” to expedite legal challenges.
Mindful of the government’s record on struggling to return those who have not been granted asylum, Labour is also setting out investment in a new returns unit to “triage and fast-track removals”. It clearly wants to send a message to the electorate: that Labour will be tough on those who it says have no right to be in the UK, having had their claim refused.
What matters now is how these plans are implemented. A critical gap that undermines the rights of those in the asylum system today is the lack of access to legal advice and representation. Ensuring that any person is able to have the legal support they need and that they are entitled to present their case is about due process and fairness. This must not be compromised.
Equally, how people are returned – and ensuring it happens with humanity and dignity – matters. A voluntary returns programme that builds trust with people so they engage willingly in leaving the country is far more effective than relying on enforcement.
A deal with the EU also needs to be part of the solution to Channel crossings, as Labour has proposed. But just as important is expanding safe routes, such as mechanisms that allow family members to join their close relatives in the UK.
One of the biggest challenges a new Labour home secretary would face is bringing far more compassion to the lived experience of refugees. Hidden away from the media headlines is the reality of how cruelty has become normalised in the system.
We know from our work at the Refugee Council that accommodation is overcrowded and unsafe. Communicable diseases such as scabies are left untreated. Self-harm, suicidal thoughts, anxiety and depression due to being unsupported in a state of limbo are not uncommon. And homelessness is fast becoming the norm for newly recognised refugees.
Mild-mannered local leaders now openly name this cruelty. The deputy mayor of London for housing and residential development, Tom Copley, recently told the London Assembly that changes to safety standards in multi-occupancy accommodation for refugees was blatantly “putting lives at risk”.
Buried in judicial review judgments are further shocking examples. A recent judgment highlighted how an article on shaving from Gillette was used to wrongly attest that a teenage unaccompanied child from Afghanistan was an adult. Not surprisingly, the judge was scathing about how the assessment was carried out.
If there is to be genuine change, an incoming Labour government must implement the key lesson of the review into the Windrush scandal – that the Home Office always sees the actual face behind the case when dealing with children and adults going through the immigration system.
Critically, Labour must not overlook the real opportunity to champion a different global approach to refugees, rooted in the party’s values. Starmer could choose to lead the world in taking a multilateral stance that emphasises the importance of a shared humanity that underpins the refugee convention – and moves away from the pull-up-the-drawbridge enforcement response that currently prevails. It will require looking at the causes behind global instability and conflict, as well as how the world responds to those who flee for safety.
This is by no means easy or politically very attractive. But great leaders don’t shy away from addressing the major issues of our time, or taking them on with a deep commitment to the values they hold. The Labour leader shouldn’t hesitate to grasp this opportunity.
Enver Solomon is chief executive of the Refugee Council
