Strong foundations

Why > A new Border Security Command with an increased funding such as “25% increase in the agency’s dedicated personnel tackling organised immigration crime” (GOV.UK) can stregthen the country’s ability to combat illegal immigration, smuggling, and other cross-border crimes. By integrating hundreds of new investigators, intelligence officers, and cross-border police officers, the command would enhance coordination, improve intelligence sharing, and enable rapid responses to emerging threats. This initiative reflects a commitment to securing borders more effectively and addressing the complexities of modern migration and criminal activity. What Success Means > Success would involve better detection and prevention of illegal immigration and smuggling, leading to fewer breaches at the border. It would also mean enhanced collaboration between domestic and international agencies, resulting in dismantled criminal networks and safer, more controlled borders. Additionally, public confidence in the government’s ability to manage migration and national security would grow, reflecting the effectiveness of the new command in protecting the UK’s borders.

Why > Employers who exploit migrant workers undermine labor standards and contribute to a race to the bottom in wages and conditions. In the UK, it is estimated that 1 in 5 low-paid workers are victims of exploitation. Labour’s policy to ban such employers from hiring from overseas aims to tackle exploitation, similar to measures in Germany where firms breaching labor laws face significant penalties. What Success Means > Success would lead to better enforcement of labor standards, reduced exploitation, and fairer competition among businesses. This would help protect both migrant and domestic workers, fostering a healthier labor market.

Why > A new returns and enforcement unit with an additional 1,000 staff would focus on fast-tracking removals of those who do not have the right to stay in the UK. In 2022, fewer than 3,000 people were removed from the UK despite over 50,000 applications being rejected. Labour’s policy aims to address this inefficiency and ensure that failed asylum seekers are returned to safe countries more quickly. What Success Means > Success would mean faster and more efficient returns, reducing the burden on the asylum system and ensuring that immigration rules are upheld. This would save costs and help maintain public trust in the immigration system whilst tackling the small boat crossing issue.

Why > The UK currently faces significant challenges in deporting failed asylum seekers who do not qualify for refugee status or other forms of protection. As of 2022, fewer than 3,000 people were returned from the UK despite more than 50,000 asylum applications being rejected. This backlog strains the asylum system and increases costs for taxpayers. Labour’s policy to negotiate additional returns arrangements aims to streamline the process of returning failed asylum seekers to their countries of origin or other safe third countries. Countries like Germany and Sweden have established effective bilateral agreements and readmission treaties with various countries to expedite returns, ensuring their asylum systems remain efficient and credible. What Success Means > Success would involve negotiating agreements with more “safe” return countries, enabling swift and humane returns for rejected asylum seekers. By expanding the list of safe return countries, the UK could reduce bottlenecks in the asylum system and discourage illegal immigration, particularly across the Channel. Establishing additional return arrangements would speed up the deportation process, alleviating pressure on public services and accommodation systems. For instance, Germany’s agreements with over 30 countries streamline returns and minimize delays. Reducing the time failed asylum seekers spend in the UK awaiting deportation would cut costs related to accommodation, legal appeals, and welfare support, helping save the taxpayer significant amounts—over £2 billion in 2023 alone. An efficient returns policy would also strengthen public confidence in the asylum system, demonstrating that the UK can manage its borders and enforce immigration laws fairly. By negotiating returns only with countries meeting international human rights standards, the UK would uphold the rights of asylum seekers while ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. These efforts would foster collaborative international relations, enhancing the UK’s diplomatic standing as a country committed to both security and human rights.

Why > A new security agreement with the EU can improve cooperation in combating cross-border threats such as terrorism, organized crime, and cyberattacks. Government aims to strengthen national and European security, improve law enforcement collaboration, and ensure a more coordinated approach to safeguarding citizens. What Success Means > Success would involve more effective sharing of critical intelligence, leading to faster identification and disruption of criminal and terrorist activities. This would result in increased security for both the UK and EU countries, a reduction in cross-border crime, and stronger collaboration in tackling shared threats. Additionally, success would enhance public confidence in the government’s ability to protect citizens through international cooperation and improve relations with EU partners post-Brexit.

Why > The use of hotels to house asylum seekers in the UK has become a significant issue, with over 50,000 asylum seekers placed in hotels as of 2023, costing the taxpayer around £6 million per day. This approach is expensive, unsustainable, and often unsuitable for the needs of vulnerable individuals. Labour aims to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by clearing the existing backlog of asylum cases and providing more appropriate and cost-effective accommodations. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands provide alternative accommodation in community-based settings or dedicated reception centers, which have proven to be more humane ,cost-effective and effective at helping asylum seekers intergrate into society. Success would mean transitioning asylum seekers from hotels to more suitable and dignified accommodation, such as community-based housing or purpose-built reception centers. It would lead to several key benefits > Reduced Costs > Ending the use of hotels would significantly cut down on the daily costs of housing asylum seekers. Funds saved could be redirected to more sustainable, long-term solutions, such as improving processing times and providing better support services for asylum seekers. Improved Living Conditions > Asylum seekers would benefit from living in more stable environments that allow for greater community integration and access to essential services, such as healthcare, education, and legal support. Faster Asylum Processing > By reallocating resources currently spent on hotel accommodation to speeding up the asylum process, the government could reduce the backlog of cases. This would lead to quicker decisions, enabling genuine asylum seekers to start rebuilding their lives and those without a right to stay to be returned promptly. Enhanced Community Relations > Community-based accommodation models have been shown to foster better relations between asylum seekers and local residents, reducing stigma and fostering integration. For example, Sweden’s focus on integrating asylum seekers into communities has led to more positive social outcomes. Better Mental Health Outcomes > Providing more appropriate accommodation would likely improve the mental health and well-being of asylum seekers, who often experience stress and trauma while waiting for asylum decisions in inappropriate settings like hotels.

Why > The backlog of asylum cases in the UK has reached record levels, with more than 175,000 cases awaiting a decision as of mid-2023. This backlog forces the government to use asylum hotels, costing taxpayers around £6 million per day. Labour aims to clear the backlog and end the use of these hotels, saving billions of pounds in the long term. Germany, which processes asylum claims much faster due to better resourcing, has demonstrated that quicker decisions can reduce costs and improve outcomes for asylum seekers and the host country. What Success Means > Success would result in a significantly reduced backlog of asylum cases, the closure of expensive asylum hotels, and a more humane and efficient asylum process. It would save taxpayers billions and allow genuine asylum seekers to integrate and contribute to society faster, while also ensuring those without a right to stay are removed promptly.

Why > Strengthening support for refugees in their home regions can help reduce the number of people undertaking dangerous journeys to reach the UK. In 2023, 45,755 people crossed the English Channel in small boats seeking asylum in the UK. Similar to Denmark’s approach, Labour aims to support regional stability and development to address the root causes of displacement. What Success Means > Success would mean fewer dangerous crossings and a more managed and sustainable asylum process. It would also lead to more international cooperation and aid aimed at improving conditions in refugees’ home regions, thereby reducing global displacement pressures.

Why > Home Secretary announces “up to 100 new specialist intelligence and investigations officers deployed to the National Crime Agency (NCA) to disrupt and smash criminal smuggling gangs and prevent dangerous boat crossings” (GOV.UK). This recruitment can improve security response to illegal immigration, sumuggling, and organized crime. What Success Means > Success would mean a noticeable improvement in the detection and disruption of illegal activities at the border, including fewer incidents of illegal immigration and smuggling. It would also result in stronger intelligence capabilities, quicker responses to threats, and dismantled criminal networks. Overall, ensuring national safety and effective migration management.

Why > This policy focuses on streamlining the process of deporting failed asylum seekers by negotiating additional returns arrangements and expanding the list of “safe countries” to which these individuals can be sent. The inefficiencies in the current system, where only a fraction of rejected asylum seekers are returned to their home countries or other safe countries, contribute to a lack of public confidence in the UK’s immigration system. For example, Sweden has robust bilateral agreements with several countries, facilitating quicker and more efficient returns. Success in managing asylum claims and deportations would mean faster processing times, reducing the number of rejected asylum seekers remaining in the UK for extended periods. Countries like France, with bilateral readmission agreements, demonstrate how swift returns can be achieved. More efficient use of public resources would follow by cutting the time and taxpayer costs spent on accommodating rejected asylum seekers, who often stay in the UK due to prolonged appeal processes and lack of return arrangements. Expanding the list of “safe” countries for return, like Germany’s system, would allow for quicker deportations and fewer delays. Strengthening diplomatic ties with countries of origin through new return agreements would improve cooperation and could involve development aid or incentives for the reintegration of returnees. Crucially, maintaining human rights standards by ensuring returns are only made to safe countries would uphold the UK’s commitment to vulnerable individuals. Ultimately, a more efficient and humane returns process would help restore public trust, ensuring the system is fair, effective, and able to distinguish between legitimate asylum seekers and those without a valid claim.

Why > “The current peak came in 2022, when over 45 000 people were detected arriving in the UK illegally using small boats” (Global Initiative). The government would implement this policy to disrupt the operations of criminal gangs that facilitate illegal immigration. These gangs exploit vulnerable individuals and profit from dangerous, illegal journeys, often putting lives at risk. By using counter-terror tactics (intelligence gathering, surveillance, and coordinated enforcement) the government aims to dismantle these networks and prevent further exploitation by targeting the facilitators, not just the migrants themselves. What Success Means > Success would mean a significant reduction in the activities of criminal gangs involved in illegal immigration, fewer dangerous crossings and deaths, and a decline in irregular migration overall. It would also involve strengthened border security, improved public confidence in the immigration system, and closer international cooperation to address the root causes of illegal migration. Ultimately, success would create a safer, more controlled migration process while protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation.

Why > Government aims to ensure a more efficient, effective, and just system to reduce backlogs, prevent abuse, and help those who need genuine protection. Strengthening enforcement can improve the integrity of the system and ensure rules are consistently applied. What Success Means > Success would mean a faster, more efficient asylum process with fewer delays, enabling quicker decisions on claims. It would involve fair treatment for all applicants, with effective mechanisms to remove those whose claims are rejected, reducing strain on public services. Ultimately, public confidence in the system would grow, ensuring that the UK remains a welcoming country for genuine refugees.

Why > “The Conservatives’ Rwanda scheme cost taxpayers £700m, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has said” (BBC). The Rwanda partnership’s feasibility, legal challenges, and ethical implications have been debated, thus the government aims to prioritize policies that are more aligned with public values, international law, and practical outcomes, while reallocating resources to more sustainable strategies. What Success Means > Success would mean the development of alternative migration policies that effectively deter irregular migration while upholding human rights and international standards, reducing dangerous journeys, strengthens border security, and fosters public trust in a fair and humane asylum system. Additionally, success would be reflected in enhanced international cooperation on migration issues.

Why > The UK has seen a significant increase in asylum claims in recent years, but many claims are made by individuals who do not meet the criteria for refugee status. A robust return policy can quickly and effectively return those whose claims are rejected and ensure that resources are allocated to those in genuine need. Consequently, individuals whose claim is likely be unsuccessful, may be less inclined to undertake illegal journeys. As a result, the UK can reduce the strain on its asylum system, including the accommodation, legal, and social services provided to asylum seekers, maintaining the integrity and sustainability of the system. Additionally, ensuring public support for and international cooperation on migration issues. What Success Means > An increase in failed asylum seekers being swiftly returned to their home countries or other safe third countries would indicate effectiveness in managing asylum cases. Consequently, reducing the backlog of asylum cases and focusing the resources on genuine refugees and asylum seekers. The success of the policy would result in less attemps to reach the UK through irregular means or dangerous crossings of the English Channel, in turn reducing human trafficking activities. A fair and efficient system would maintain or even increase public confidence in the government’s handling of immigration and asylum issues. Therefore, the UK would secure agreements with additional safe countries, aligning with human rights and international law. This strong cooperation would benefit the UK’s international standing. Overall, success would mean a more efficient, fair, and sustainable system that balances humanitarian obligations with the need to control immigration.