In the last few weeks, we seem to have gone from many believing that Labour will likely form the next government, to almost everybody accepting it as a foregone conclusion.
The Conservatives won’t just cave, of course. The next months are bound to see increasingly desperate Tories amp up the anti-migration rhetoric in an attempt to claw back votes. They will promise to cut numbers and rights, as they always do, but their xenophobic shouting will be nothing more than a last gasp. In 2024, barring a massive turnaround, it will be Labour’s turn to implement a migration policy.
The problem is, if the Labour party conference a few weeks ago is anything to go by, it’s still very difficult to tell what that policy will actually be. It’s still in the process of taking shape, so we very much need to be talking about it.
Two conferences, two approaches
Incendiary rhetoric and demonisation of migrants dominated the Conservative party conference. Nigel Farage’s presence hung over the event, and Suella Braverman’s blood curdling speech about the threat of migration (widely viewed as a leadership pitch) received as much attention as Rishi Sunak’s own address.
By contrast, the narrative on migration coming out of Labour party conference was muted. Kier Starmer’s address did not touch on the issue, and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, focussed as much on other issues as she did on migration. Meanwhile Stephen Kinnock, the shadow migration minister, made a number of interventions that similarly reflected the sensible Labour position that since the Conservatives are seeking to use migration as a wedge issue, one of the best things Labour can do is to take some heat out of the debate.
Asylum seekers should not be of such disproportionate concern to policy makers.
A more measured tone towards migration issues, that situates it as one among many important concerns facing the country, of course better reflects people’s priorities. There is far greater concern across the UK about the cost of living, the economy, and the NHS and social care, than about migration. Other issues including the housing crisis, the environment, and the general collapse in trust in politicians are also given significant weight in public polls. Not one of these other issues plays well for the Conservatives, and so it’s easy to see why they are now focused to the exclusion of much else on migration. It suits Labour to diversify the conversation.
But though spoken quietly, there were signs of what Labour’s plans for immigration might be. Given the state of the current system, their plans have the potential to either bring about key improvements or continue to cause harm. So it’s important to make sure that this conversation moves in the right direction.
Caught on the tip of the iceberg
As is too often the case, the conversation about asylum, rather than other types of migration, took up the most oxygen. Yvette Cooper only spoke about plans for the asylum system and did not touch on the far more numerically significant questions of family, work and student migration rights. Fringe events similarly skewed towards a discussion of the needs of refugees, safe routes, and channel crossings, reflecting the asymmetry of concern for these issues among civil society organisations.
Refugee protection is by far the most contentious migration issue for the public, largely because refugees in the main are not granted visas to enter the UK through formal routes. As a result, they are the ones arriving in dramatic and highly visible circumstances, in small boats and lorries. They are the ones housed in appalling conditions in hotels or barges, and threatened with permanent forced deportation to Rwanda. And they are the ones targeted by the most egregious government legislation and rhetoric of the past few years, under a series of increasingly Disney villain-like ministers.
But asylum seekers made up just 16% of net migration to the UK last year. It is important that we address their ill treatment and provide them with alternatives to smugglers’ boats. But they should not be of such disproportionate concern to the public or to policy makers.
Moderate, but not innovative, on refugees
The suggestions that came out of conference for refugees we have mostly heard before.
The good: Scrap the shameful Rwanda policy and instead invest in fast processing of asylum claims to clear the backlog and get people out of hotels.
The ambiguous: Seek greater cooperation with European allies in order to “stop the boats upstream”. This could theoretically involve a serious commitment to sharing responsibility and protecting human life at European borders, establishing safe routes to access the UK for a realistic number of asylum seekers, and leading the continent in a safer, more humane direction.
But it looks more like an attempted return to a pre-Brexit asylum policy, including the return of removal agreements with the rest of Europe. Pre-Brexit Britain wasn’t much more lenient than it is now for people wanting to cross the channel. It offered safe passage to only a small number of unaccompanied minors in Europe, a rule which never stopped people from camping around Calais or attempting crossings in lorries. Reviving the status quo ante would not be an achievement worth celebrating. We need more.
The bad: A renewed focus on deportations and a promise of a thousand additional enforcement officers. This serves the rhetorical purpose of balancing what could be seen as more pragmatic and humane proposals with a nod towards the hardliners. But it doesn’t serve our communities. There’s no evidence that the growing budget for immigration enforcement has had any impact on the number of people living without authorisation in the UK. But there has been plenty of evidence of harm caused by the ‘hostile environment’ policies nominally aimed at deterring them.
Meanwhile, the numbers are stark: around 75% of the people crossing the channel are refugees. If they arrive alive, they enter a protection system unworthy of the name. A system that supports and integrates new arrivals is a far better use of public money than one that grows our already bloated and ineffective enforcement arm against them. Yet there was little talk of that.
Wanted: a system overhaul
As I have alluded to, little attention was paid to the non-asylum, points-based immigration system.
Kinnock made some relatively positive interventions on this front, drawing the link between restrictive, poorly regulated work visas and the exploitation of migrant workers staffing our key industries. He posited the better regulation of overseas recruitment agencies and the creation of a single labour standards enforcement body in the UK. This could be an improvement on the current complex system, but only if its operations are clearly separated from immigration enforcement operations. Currently joint raids (where raids happen at all) are common, and there is no guarantee against data sharing between labour inspectors and the Home Office. Migrant workers are therefore often unable to report abusive employers because joint inspection-immigration operations jeopardise their ability to stay in their jobs and in the country.
One key move to improve conditions for migrant workers would be to increase the flexibility of visas, including longer, more stable grants of leave on all pathways. By removing the need for migrants to reapply over and again for the temporary right to stay in their homes and jobs, we would cut a huge amount of bureaucracy from the Home Office. We would also free migrant workers to establish lives in our communities without fear of it all suddenly falling apart. And despite it being common sense, research has confirmed that extending visa times could significantly reduce the number of people losing formal immigration status and living in the country without authorisation – so also reducing work for that expensive and harmful enforcement wing of the Home Office.
All this is only a start. But the good news is that it is not all bad news. The biggest cause for hope at the conference was that it looks like Labour is putting some real thought into designing a new and better points-based immigration system. This thinking is urgently needed, as there is no doubt that the Conservatives are considering even more migration legislation before their time is up. It is highly likely that they will be targeting migrant workers and their families this time, so Labour would do well to have a repair plan ready when they enter No. 10.
