The SNP and the Lib Dems back a “safe passage pilot scheme” amendment to the Government’s Asylum Bill
A safe passage pilot scheme deserves cross-party support in both Houses of Parliament
The Government’s policy of “Rwanda first, lawful routes later” is an upside down policy. A lawful route across the Channel would be a frontal assault on the people-traffickers’ business plan. The proposed amendment to the Government’s Asylum Bill for a “safe passage pilot scheme” is a modest proposal which deserves cross-party support in both Houses of Parliament.
Progress of the Government’s Bill through Parliament
The Government’s Asylum Bill, or “Illegal Migration Bill”, to give it its full title, was hastily debated in the House of Commons on the 27th and 28th March, and waved on to its next stage, though not before a flurry of amendments were discussed, and voted down. There will be more debate and amendments at Report Stage and 3rd reading, which will take place on 25th April.
The Government’s Plan
There is no legal way for the asylum seekers who congregate around Calais to get into the UK to make an asylum claim. Only those who make it across the Channel can do so. The UK Government aims to put a stop to that, and to make sure that asylum seekers who reach the UK illegally cannot claim asylum or qualify for UK Citizenship. Asylum seekers who reach the UK would be detained with a view to return to their country of origin, or removal to Rwanda for processing of their claims and possible resettlement. It is true that legal routes for refugees to make asylum claims in the UK exist, but they are very limited and not a practical option for those who risk a small-boat crossing.
The UK Government insists that its new policy will break the people traffickers’ business model. Once that is achieved, it will consider new legal routes for asylum seekers.
This is an upside down policy. A safe and lawful route should be part of the means to defeat the people traffickers, not a bonus to await success of a policy whose success is far from assured. A lawful route across the Channel would support action by the French authorities to crack down on the Channel crossings at source, and the French Government has called for this in the past.
This writer’s modest proposal
The UK Government could make a start with a pilot scheme for a combined asylum/work visa, offering it solely to those with an 85% or more chance of being granted asylum. For those unable to work, there could be a priority asylum visa, offered solely to those with a similarly high likelihood of success in their final assessment. For details of this proposed scheme, see this writer’s earlier blog.
Some Conservative MPs told the Government they were unhappy about its “Rwanda first, lawful routes later” approach. Yet. when the Asylum Bill was debated on 27 and 28 March, no amendment to provide safe and legal routes was offered by the Government. A prominent Tory advocate of more safe and legal routes is Tim Loughton MP, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, but he is certainly not alone.
The Liberal Democrats propose a “Safe Passage Pilot Scheme”
The only amendment which would have offered a legal route was that proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which would have inserted in the Bill provision for a “Safe Passage Pilot Scheme.” The scheme would come into operation within 3 months of the Act being passed, and only those whose country of origin suggested an 80%+ chance of successfully seeking asylum would be eligible. The amendment is based on this writer’s proposal, referred to above.
Support across all opposition parties except for Labour
The Liberal Democrat proposal received considerable support in the House of Commons on 27 March, with 67 votes in favour. These votes came from the Lib Dems (12), the SNP (43), the Alba Party (1 formerly SNP MP), 5 Northern Ireland MPs, Caroline Lucas of the Greens, Plaid Cymru’s 3 MPs, and 2 independents. The Labour Party did not vote. It has given the cause of safe and legal routes a wide berth, with the exception of Yvette Cooper’s call for a legal route for unaccompanied children hoping to rejoin family members in the UK.
The amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats was a modest one in two respects. In the first place it was a proposal for a pilot scheme, subject to evaluation, and in the second place it was to be confined to asylum seekers with a very high prospect – 80% or more - of succeeding in their asylum claims. It received significant minority support, from all parts of the United Kingdom, and it received very strong support in particular from Scotland.
The pilot scheme advocated by this writer, and on which the Liberal Democrat amendment was based, was also a modest one – in one respect more modest in that it would have confined eligibility to asylum seekers with an 85+% chance of success in their asylum claims. In another respect it was more admittedly more ambitious, in that it envisaged a combined work/asylum visa.
It is not a crime for genuine asylum seekers to seek economic betterment
The UK Government says in its Overarching Factsheet on the Illegal Migration Bill that it isn’t “fair that those coming to the UK with the intention of becoming economic migrants are able to exploit our asylum system, which should be prioritising those whose lives are genuinely at risk.”
Yet those with a genuine asylum claim cannot be accused of “exploiting” the asylum system. The fact is that individuals may be both fleeing persecution and seeking economic betterment, and the latter motive does not invalidate the former. If UK policy recognised the economic ambitions of asylum seekers and allowed some to enter the UK both to work and to pursue a claim for asylum, that would save those concerned from the clutches of criminal gangs, and undermine the traffickers business plan. At the same time the asylum seekers/workers would be contributing to the UK economy, and saving the taxpayer the cost of support payments during a period of enforced economic inactivity.
There are numerous vacancies for unskilled workers in the UK
A report by think-tank UK in a Changing Europe suggests that the present UK system for migrant workers is effective for skilled workers but leaves something of a gap for unskilled workers, supplied by migration from the EU prior to Brexit. The report estimates this shortfall as being more than 400,000, affecting in particular the sectors of hospitality and transport.
The UK could plug some of this gap for unskilled workers by offering combined work/asylum visas to refugees planning small-boat crossings from northern France.
But that is not to say that the UK Government – any UK Government – should give up control of numbers, nor that they should give up the war against the people smugglers who exploit asylum seekers and organise the small-boat crossing which cost lives and to which the UK public rightly object. Part of the Government’s policy is right. The part of that policy which says “Rwanda first, lawful routes later”, is not. There is still time for the Government’s Asylum Bill to be amended before it becomes law. Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords should make the case for at least a pilot scheme for a combined asylum/work visa, and a priority asylum visa for those who cannot work. Numbers would be controlled. Visas would only be offered to those with a very high chance of making a successful claim. This would be a good deal for the UK taxpayer, and for the UK economy.
Derrick Wyatt, KC is Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and a former barrister. He argued cases before the EU Courts and advised businesses and governments. He is a member of the International Academic Council of Fide Fundación.