Rishi Sunak could lead the charge against the ECHR
The asylum system causes such deep political divisions for the simple reason that both sides are right. There is real and justified dismay, particularly among my Tory colleagues in Parliament, that we seem unable to stop Channel crossings. But the other side is also right when asking how a refugee is supposed to seek asylum here except by crossing illegally.
Nevertheless, there must be a priority: that the level crossings stop. So far this year nearly 50,000 people – many of them young single men – have reached our shores in small boats. However, migrants pass through a whole series of safe countries before entering the English Channel.
They continue until they reach the UK as they are almost certain to be allowed to stay here. Once they arrive and have sought asylum, they are either kept at state expense – usually in hotels in neighborhoods that understandably resent their arrival in such large numbers – or disappear into the underworld.
This week the Prime Minister announced a package measures to deter Channel migrants, disrupt the business model of traffickers and speed up the processing of complaints. They are all necessary. But are they enough?
There are more than 100 million people in the world who qualify for asylum. Under our current laws, the only thing stopping them all from moving to the UK is the cost of travel. And while the plans announced this week will allow the authorities to refuse the asylum application of anyone who has arrived here by illegal means, there remains a key obstacle to the next step to be taken: deportation to their country of origin, or failing that, to a partner like Rwanda.
This barrier is the European convention of human rights (ECHR) and the power it gives to Strasbourg judges to overrule the domestic policies of nation states.
Yes, the ECHR was drafted with the help of British Conservative lawyers after World War II. The problem is that over time, judges have steadily expanded the initially drafted limited set of rights and freedoms. Earlier this year, a Strasbourg judge used the ECHR to end the UK government’s policy of sending asylum seekers back to Rwanda. Indeed, we await a forthcoming decision from the High Court (because under Labor Strasbourg, the ECHR is justiciable in UK courts as well as in Strasbourg) on whether the Rwandan policy is indeed contrary to the ECHR.
You may think it is wrong to deport asylum seekers to another country. But surely that is a matter for Parliament, not the courts. And certainly not for a court in France. Given the number of people on the move around the world, we need to rethink the human rights and asylum framework for the 21st century. Therefore, like Winston Churchill, Rishi Sunak should work with our allies to craft a new international arrangement fit for the age of migration.
As well as ensuring national sovereignty over borders, this new framework must include a meaningful legal pathway for people fleeing war or persecution, anywhere in the world, to seek asylum in the UK. This route is expected to be overseen by the United Nations to ensure only genuine refugees can apply, with numbers capped by the UK government to reflect our capacity to take in refugees. A proper legal pathway will mean that no one will be able to claim, as they are now, that they could not claim asylum without crossing the Channel. This will allow us to honor our moral obligations to a reasonable proportion of the world’s displaced people and block access to those we simply cannot accommodate.
We also need to expand the use of community sponsorship to identify refugees for admission and ensure they are properly integrated into British society once they arrive here. Community groups should be invited to provide accommodation and support to refugees, ensuring that they are not a heavy burden on the taxpayer, that they learn English and are able to contribute quickly to our society.
The British are a generous and open people – but they also insist on fairness. This dual policy – robust on national sovereignty while being compassionate and helpful to the refugees we invite to stay with us – is the path through this spiteful debate to an asylum system that works.