Labour's plan for failed asylum seekers shows they're willing to adopt previously unpalatable policies
The Conservatives leapt on Labour's idea for third country migrant "returns hubs" as evidence that cancelling their controversial Rwanda plan was a mistake.
In fundamental terms, the Rwanda plan was very different, not least because it was implacably opposed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which is now - in principle at least - backing this concept.
The Tories were intending to deport everyone who arrived in the UK illegally to the central African country, regardless of whether they had a legitimate asylum claim.
Labour 's plan is about dealing with people who have no such claims - who have exhausted every avenue for appeal, and therefore, in the words of the UNHCR, are "not in need of international protection".
This important distinction is unlikely to prevent real queasiness among those in Labour who see the idea as far too reminiscent of the Conservative approach.
0:51
The government is hoping the UNHRC's intervention will provide a degree of legal and political cover to pursue the policy.
But the details are still incredibly sketchy.
A Home Office Source tells me "there are some people it's very difficult to return at the moment, e.g. those from Afghanistan.
"So the idea would be a period of leave in another country which can be terminated if things change in their country of origin, but also recognises they have failed to successfully claim asylum in the UK."
It's unclear how long that "period of leave" would be.
Would migrants stay there indefinitely, if the situation doesn't change in their countries of origin?
And if not - would deals be struck for permanent resettlement elsewhere?
It's politically, diplomatically, morally and legally complex territory.
Sir Keir Starmer previously talked about working closely with Italy to look at ways of processing migrants in a third country, after the Italians struck a deal with Albania and have begun sending rejected asylum seekers there (after months of legal wrangling).
Would the Albanians have the appetite for more of these deals? Which other countries would be prepared to step in?
How much would we be prepared to pay?
It's clearly far from a fully developed policy. But the willingness of government sources to talk it up points to their political need to talk tough on migration - and sound like they do really have a plan to deal with the issue.
The prime minister promised to "smash the gangs" and get a grip on the problem of illegal migration - and the asylum backlog.
But with record numbers of people making that dangerous journey across the Channel in small boats - and under growing pressure on the right from Reform - his government is clearly prepared to countenance policies which would previously have been deeply unpalatable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour's 'war-ready' plans will be blown apart by Nato's demand for 3.5% spending on defence and cause £40billion funding shortfall... and tax hikes might be the only way to plug the gap
Voters were warned last night to brace for further tax rises after Nato spending demands blew a £40billion hole in Labour 's plans. Nato chief Mark Rutte has told Keir Starmer and other leaders that the alliance later this month will raise its minimum spending target from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent by 2035 to deter Russia 's Vladimir Putin and placate US President Donald Trump. Military sources said it would be 'unthinkable' for Britain to refuse the demand given its leading role in Nato. But experts claimed the bill could eventually run to £40billion a year – the same amount raised by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in her controversial Budget last year and equal to 5p on the basic rate of income tax. Defence Secretary John Healey refused to rule out tax increases to help fund the push to move Britain to a position of 'war-fighting readiness' but said ministers would 'set out how we'll pay for future increases in the future'. The Prime Minister has committed to raising defence spending from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent by 2027. And he has said the Government will move to 3 per cent at some point in the early 2030s 'subject to economic and fiscal conditions'. But he repeatedly refused to set an 'arbitrary date' for meeting it or set out how it would be funded. Sir Keir was holding emergency talks with advisers in Downing Street about how to respond to the demand. He said this week there were 'discussions about what the contribution should be going into the Nato conference'. This week's Strategic Defence Review said Britain must be ready 'to step up, to lead in Nato and take greater responsibility for our collective self-defence'. Whitehall sources cautioned the Nato target may not have to be met in full for a decade, although intermediate goals could be set along the way. The increased spending demand comes at a time when Ms Reeves is already struggling to meet her own fiscal rules and ministers are in retreat over welfare cuts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned 'chunky' tax rises would be needed even to hit 3 per cent spending on defence. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, of the Royal United Services Institute, claimed meeting 3.5 per cent by 2035 would cost an extra £40billion a year and said this was equivalent to raising overall income tax receipts 'by 10 per cent'. Former Army chief Lord Dannatt said: 'I would make the case that we have got to tighten our belt. And if we can't borrow more, which we can't, if we can't grow the economy, which we're struggling to, then we've got to put some taxes up.' Official figures show Labour's current plans would see spending on sickness benefits rise faster than that on defence. Despite planned cuts to disability benefits, spending on sickness and disability is forecast to rise from 2.4 per cent of GDP to 3.1 per cent by the end of the decade, reaching almost £100billion a year by 2030. Former Tory chancellor Jeremy Hunt said yesterday that welfare reform was the 'only way' to square the circle. Mr Rutte is expected to set the minimum defence spending target when Nato leaders gather in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 24. The target will be supplemented with an additional goal of spending 1.5 per cent on security- related activity, taking the total to the five per cent demanded by Mr Trump. But former Nato chief Lord Robertson warned that many countries would struggle if the aims are set too high. The Labour peer, who led the Government's review, said: 'I can see why Nato is giving targets but whether they are realisable is a different question altogether.'
South Wales Argus
10 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Rhun ap Iorwerth accuses Labour of 'actively hurting Wales'
Rhun ap Iorwerth criticised Labour's promise that having two governments of the same party would benefit Wales. The Plaid Cymru leader said: "Almost a year since Labour came into power in Westminster, their so-called 'partnership in power' is actively hurting Wales." He pointed towards a £70 million shortfall to fund the rise in employers' National Insurance Contributions affecting public sector organisations, Labour's decision to vote against calls to scrap the two-child benefit cap, the cancellation of the only in-person consultation in Wales on cuts to disability benefits, and the lack of further rail funding. Mr ap Iorwerth added: "Every time we call out these damaging policies, Labour in Wales put party before country." He concluded: "The people of Wales deserve a government that will always stand up for them."
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Ministers fight over scraps as reality bites on spending review
At cabinet on Tuesday morning Sir Keir Starmer expressed his gratitude to ministers for their work before next week's spending review. For several of those sitting round the table the prime minister's words might have rung a little hollow as they grapple with deep cuts to their budgets. The next few days will have far-reaching implications for their departments and their political aspirations. The parlous state of the public finances means that unprotected departments — those outside the Department of Health and Ministry of Defence — are facing real-terms cuts in the spending review on June 11. The run-up to this year's spending review, which will set out departmental funding, has been particularly bloody and, with a week to go, three ministers have yet to reach settlements with the Treasury. Given that the bulk of government departments have now settled, the remaining ministers find themselves locked in a battle for an ever-diminishing pool of resources. They include Yvette Cooper, the home secretary; Angela Rayner, the housing and communities secretary; and Ed Miliband, the energy and net-zero secretary. Even Wes Streeting, the health secretary, whose funding is ring-fenced and who will enjoy the lion's share of money in the review, has yet to reach a settlement although officials acknowledge that the dispute — over drug prices — is of a different order. Wes Streeting's department of health has its funding ring-fenced LEON NEAL/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES The negotiations have been tense and there has been an extraordinary level of lobbying, both inside and outside Whitehall. Reports that Rayner and Miliband stormed out of a meeting with Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Treasury, have been denied but there are claims that secretaries of state are refusing to deal with him and demanding instead to speak to Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, directly. Rayner, the deputy prime minister, was said to have been left 'very, very frustrated' by the spending review process. A source said negotiations with the Treasury became so fraught that she ended up holding meetings past midnight with officials to discuss strategies. For the ministers still locked in discussions with Reeves, one of the fundamental concerns is that the government is failing to put its money where its mouth is. Between them they are responsible for delivering some of Starmer's biggest priorities — halving knife crime and violence against women and girls; recruiting 13,000 additional frontline police officers; building 1.5 million homes; and using clean energy to power the electricity network by 2030. All of these announcements have been repeatedly put up in lights by Starmer, made in a succession of laudatory press releases and speeches and promoted with countless leaflets and social media posts. Ministers now find themselves being asked to deliver on these same pledges with significantly less money. The tense atmosphere has been exacerbated by some extraordinary lobbying. Last week The Times disclosed that police chiefs and the deputy director of MI5 had written to the government to warn that its plans to release thousands of prisoners early posed a risk to public safety. On the same day seven police chiefs including Sir Mark Rowley, the head of the Metropolitan Police, wrote an article in The Times warning that failing to increase their budget would put Starmer's pledges at risk and represent a return to austerity. They have since gone further. On Friday Rowley and other police chiefs cut out Cooper and Reeves and wrote to Starmer directly, saying negotiations between the Home Office and Treasury were going 'poorly' and that they faced stark choices about which crimes to deprioritise. For a law-and-order prime minister, their letter is unlikely to have gone down particularly well. The challenge for Starmer is that behind their warning lies a tacit threat. Should they be unable to deliver on Labour's promises, they are willing — both publicly and privately — to point the finger of blame at government. It is a similar story in other departments. Green groups and charities are alarmed by proposed cuts to Miliband's £13.2 billion warm homes plan. Farmers are raising the alarm over plans to slash a big land management scheme. Developers are warning that the failure to invest in affordable housing will lead to homebuilding targets being missed. The ministers will all ultimately settle — they have no choice in the matter. But the process itself points to the fact cabinet is increasingly emboldened in questioning the chancellor. While Reeves was once arguably the dominant figure in Starmer's Labour, she is now a relatively diminished one after a public backlash over the decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance. The prospect of further tax rises has not helped matters. A government source said: 'The word that keeps coming up about Rachel is 'captured' — people think she's just been absorbed by the Treasury orthodoxy. There's no imagination. There's no theory of growth.' This is categorically rejected by allies of Reeves, who say the spending review will be focused on improving living standards. At the root of the problem is that, after two years of relatively generous spending fuelled by big tax rises, Reeves is now determined to apply the squeeze. Real-terms spending will grow by an average of 1.2 per cent a year over the three-year spending review period, well down on the 2.5 per cent over Labour's first two years. But ministers have already promised a big increase in defence spending and if the NHS budget increases in line with the long-term average of 3.5 per cent, then other departments face real-terms cuts of 1 per cent a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned it will be 'impossible' to fund all the priorities without 'chunky tax increases'. Reeves does have a good news story to tell. She will use her budget to announce £113 billion of capital funding, including investment in 'shovel-ready' transport and infrastructure projects in the regions to fend off Reform UK. There will also be an announcement on Sizewell C, a nuclear power plant in Suffolk that will produce enough energy to power six million homes, and the green light for mini nuclear reactors. But officials acknowledge that the cuts will dominate the headlines. In a week's time the battles that have raged behind the scenes will be laid bare in black and white. The winners and losers who emerge from this fraught process could have a defining role in Labour's prospects at the next election, for better or worse.
