The British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced this week the UK government’s latest stab at reforming its asylum and returns policy following the disastrous Rwanda scheme, and there is reason to believe that this time, change might actually be afoot.
Alarm bells should be ringing in Dublin.
In a much-anticipated development, the UK has decided that it ought to follow Denmark’s example and tighten its asylum system. The just-published Restoring Order and Control Home Office document states:
“As we have held rigidly to the old model, other countries have tightened theirs. This has been most notable in Denmark, though not exclusively so. There, a radical transformation of the asylum system has taken place. Refugee status has become temporary, and not permanent. Refuge lasts only as long as a safe harbour is genuinely required. And the state has taken a far more concerted effort to remove those who are failed asylum seekers. Last year, asylum claims in Denmark fell to a 40-year low.”
Following Denmark’s example, the UK will be implementing a number of changes along the lines of those referenced in the passage above. They include making refugee status temporary, and subject to mandatory review every 30 months; a quadrupling of the wait period before it’s possible to apply for permanent settlement, from its current five years to 20 years; and family reunion rights are also to be heavily restricted.
A number of other measures are also contained in the plans, among them requiring individuals to contribute to the cost of their asylum support; banning multiple appeals against asylum refusals; and reducing the accommodation standards for asylum seekers, moving away from hotels to more austere settings like military barracks and training camps.
All in all, it represents a substantial change in direction, very much in the mold of Denmark’s trajectory.
In her messaging accompanying the announcement, Ms Mahmood, a Labour MP, struck a unique balance – policy pleasing to Reform and many of its supporters, and rhetoric pleasing to most (certainly not all) across the political spectrum.
Reform MP Danny Kruger suggested that she put in an application to join the party, to which she responded “over my dead body”. At the same time, she’s spoken the language of the left while making the case for the necessity of the changes, writing in the Guardian that “a country without secure borders is a less safe country for those who look like me,” the subtext being that Ms Mahmood is of Pakistani heritage, and a devout Muslim.
It remains to be seen whether or not the change in direction can be cemented in place, as it’s likely to face the same lawfare the Rwanda scheme was ultimately hobbled by (to the point that, before it was scrapped by Keir Starmer, it saw only four migrants voluntarily relocated over the course of its short lifetime). Nevertheless, as we’ve seen in the UK and the US, the threat of action is enough to result in some significant movement.
Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed last year that the rise in asylum seekers Ireland was seeing was a result of the impotent Rwanda scheme’s deterrence factor. While migratory patterns are obviously complex phenomena, there’s some reason to believe that it did have an effect, the situation being that around 80 percent of those applying for asylum in Dublin come to the Republic via Northern Ireland.
And now there’s an even greater deterrent looming in the form of Ms Mahmood’s reforms, but we need not worry, because Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan has “committed to ensuring that Ireland is not viewed more favourably than the UK by those seeking to claim asylum”.
In a statement issued yesterday evening following the UK announcement, Minister O’Callaghan said that both he and the Government are aware that changes to the UK’s asylum practices or laws “can result in changes to the flow of asylum seekers between the UK and Ireland”:
“Consequently, I will closely monitor the changes proposed by the UK Government and will respond to those proposals having considered them fully and discussed them with government colleagues. I will be publishing a new International Protection Bill to reform Ireland’s asylum system later this year and any necessary changes arising from the UK’s change of policy can be included in that Bill.
“Prior to the changes proposed by Home Secretary Mahmood, I had already directed a separate review of Ireland’s rules on family reunification and will shortly bring proposals to Government in respect of this issue.”
Well, if the situation is as we’ve outlined above – that the UK’s reforms represent a significant hardening of its asylum stance, and that such moves deter asylum seekers from staying there, in favour of greener pastures, there is some reason at the outset to believe that there will be a change in the flow of asylum seekers between the UK and Ireland once again.
As is usually the case, Independent TD Carol Nolan seems to understand the urgency a situation like that requires, issuing a statement yesterday evening saying that there is now an “absolute moral and political imperative for the Irish Government to abandon any attempt to deal with our asylum crisis in an incremental or half-hearted manner”.
Striking a similar tone to that adopted in the UK of late, Deputy Nolan said that “we should move immediately to send the signal out internationally; come here illegally and we will detain you and send you back without a second thought and you can say goodbye to freeloading at the taxpayers’ expense because that is something we are no longer going to tolerate”.
It doesn’t require a gift of particular foresight to see that by virtue of their geographic proximity, Ireland and the UK are locked in a mutual dance of action and reaction as far as asylum, and immigration, policy is concerned.
Ireland is, despite the apparent watchfulness of its public servants, on the back foot it would seem. We’ll see shortly if that has any consequences.