Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Stuck in a hole over its immigration policy, Rishi Sunak’s Conservative UK government has chosen to dig deeper. Voter concerns, especially over asylum-seekers arriving in small boats, have been fanned by the political right, but the government’s mishandling of both legal and irregular migration has only made things worse. Policies to reduce legal migration unveiled this week risk being counterproductive. Those designed to overcome the UK Supreme Court’s objections to plans to remove some “small boats” migrants to Rwanda as a deterrent may be ineffective and further harm Britain’s reputation. Sunak pledged saner government, but the cavalier attitude to the UK’s legal obligations recalls the turbulent Boris Johnson and Liz Truss eras.
It is some relief that the emergency bill intended to facilitate the Rwanda plan stops short of “disapplying” the European Convention on Human Rights. That this prompted immigration minister Robert Jenrick to resign saying the failure to take this extra step rendered the plan unworkable, however, highlights how questionable the policy is. And the fact that it allows ministers to ignore emergency rulings from the Strasbourg human rights court, and disapplies parts of the UK’s Human Rights Act, is objectionable.
By signing a treaty with Kigali, the government is trying to counter the Supreme Court’s worry that genuine refugees could be sent back to countries they had fled. But its approach still relies heavily on parliament simply declaring Rwanda to be “safe”. Sunak says he is asserting the sovereignty of parliament, which “should be able to make decisions that cannot be undone in the courts”. This is a slippery slope. Checks and balances and separation of powers exist for good reason.
Critics say current human rights conventions were agreed when smaller numbers were fleeing mostly to escape maltreatment, before modern transport and communications enabled mass migration for economic motives. The right way to address this, however, is through multilateral negotiations — not by ignoring inconvenient provisions.
The government notes, too, that other capitals are exploring sending asylum-seekers to third countries. But few good working models exist. And it is questionable whether the (small) risk of ending up in Rwanda would be the deterrent the government claims. Sunak admits a key reason why “small boat” migrants have fallen by a third to 29,000 this year is a return agreement it reached with Albania. It is on initiatives such as these that the government should be focusing its efforts.
The failure to “stop the boats” has made it impossible for the government to make any case for necessary legal migration. Last year’s record net inflow of 745,000 was undoubtedly unsustainable, with public services already overstretched. But Downing Street cannot admit that many arrived as a result of policy choices: overseas students, refugees from Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong, and skilled workers recruited by business. Others were NHS or care workers allowed in to plug severe recruitment gaps.
Bringing the numbers down is a tricky balancing act. This week’s increase in the salary threshold for skilled foreign workers has irked businesses that the government last month tried to woo by extending tax breaks on investment. Barring dependants of care workers may make it hard to fill vacancies.
Rather than being open about the complex trade-offs, Tory governments have pandered to a rightwing narrative. As a result, the prime minister is forced to cling to a Rwanda policy that is legally and morally dubious, and threatens to become a confidence issue. Sunak promised competence in office. Increasingly, he seems to be buffeted by events.