Consensus is a rare thing when it comes to refugee policy in the UK. Yet the achievement of securing such a consensus can be added to the very short list of successes the government can claim regarding the schemes it has set up to help Ukrainians fleeing the war. Unfortunately, that consensus appears to be that the new systems are suffering severe difficulties.
Since the schemes were established, the Home Secretary Priti Patel has been “apologising with frustration,” the newly appointed Refugees Minister Lord Harrington has been describing the implementation of the new schemes as “unacceptable” and acknowledging that “we know things are not good,”. Backbench Conservative MPs have been demanding ministers “go back to the Home Office and tell it to get a grip,” and the opposition is calling the government’s response “shocking” and “truly shameful.”
A majority of the public agrees things have not gone well. A new UK-wide survey undertaken by YouGov reveals that 55 per cent of people think government processes are still making it too difficult for Ukrainian refugees to come to the UK. That majority includes 50 believe of Conservative voters and 50 per cent of Leave voters—both groups generally associated with a preference for more restrictive policies on asylum. Only 19 per cent of the public think processes are “about right.”
One critical factor driving this widely shared sense of failure is the extent of the administrative barriers facing people trying to come to the UK from Ukraine. Every day since the UK government's schemes have been established, there have been disturbing news reports of how those fleeing war have found themselves battling UK bureaucracy.
There is a seemingly endless stream of tales of human suffering. Refugees are being asked to complete lengthy and complex visa application forms in unsafe conditions, people without a passport or the proper documents are being asked to travel all around Europe to submit biometric data, and they are facing excessive delays when waiting for a decision. These are serious harms inflicted through the processes of a government that is declaring it wants to welcome Ukrainians with open arms while appearing institutionally incapable of doing so.
Ukrainians—like those trying to escape the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan—have become caught up in the UK government’s latest attempt to reengineer refugee policy. Broadly, the government’s logic appears to be that the general asylum system, operating under the Refugee Convention, is not fit to implement its policy objectives. So, the response should be to divert people away from this system.
Most asylum-seekers are now—through the aggressive legal architecture of the Nationality and Borders Act and measures like the recently-announced plan to give some a one-way ticket to Rwanda—greeted by a hostile reception aimed at deterring people from ever considering coming to the UK. But where there has been a national ethical spasm about a particular crisis—such as with the war in Ukraine—then people will be funnelled out of the general asylum system into new “bespoke humanitarian routes.”In practice, this broadly seems to mean treating people fleeing war and persecution more like they were economic migrants applying for a visa and making them navigate a series of administrative obstacles.
The overall result is that the government’s own perception of its capacity to control the movement of people increases. Meanwhile, its attempt to provide “humanitarian assistance” in crises manifests in perversions such as asking mothers to stay in war zones while they wait for a visa for their children.
It is no surprise only 27,100 Ukrainians have reached the UK even though almost six million have now fled the country. But it is shocking that this is what preferential treatment in the modern refugee system looks like—and the Afghanistan schemes are far worse than those for Ukrainians.
These episodes give the term “bureaucracy” a bad name. But government bureaucracy remains one of the primary ways to pursue a just society. Building good bureaucracy is not glamorous work, but the Ukraine schemes are the latest example of how things can go catastrophically wrong when that work is deprioritised to focus on the relentless pursuit of political objectives.
Many argue—convincingly—that we need fairer and more humane refugee policies. But recent developments serve as a reminder that the need to develop bureaucratic systems capable of making justice a reality on the ground is no less urgent.
