One of the Prime Minister’s five key pledges - stopping the boats – could, if it isn’t met, be the one that tips the 2024 General Election result against the Tories as both they and Labour focus a good deal of their energy on the pro-Brexit red-walls seats, that helped propel Boris Johnson into power, and where the migrant issue is a hot political potato.
With Westminster’s rhetoric already being ramped up ahead of England’s May council elections, the scale, and future potential scale, of the migration issue, which raises such high emotions, could begin to dominate the news headlines more and more.
Indeed, for a good while it partly dominated them this week as UK Government sources briefed journalists about how it was thinking of trying to alleviate the accommodation problem of people arriving here in small boats by possibly putting them in big boats moored on the coastline.
Yet, when asked about housing asylum-seekers in barges and ferries, Robert Jenrick, the Minister of the Poisoned Chalice, told MPs he wasn’t going to comment on “press speculation,” given nothing had yet been agreed. Disingenuous to say the least.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak is a man in a hurry but the clock is running against him
Indeed, in Commons exchanges on the migrant issue, Mr Jenrick went on happily to mention examples of placing refugees on ships in Scotland and in Holland, where their use, he noted, had been “successful”.
Quite clearly, the issue of large numbers of people – 45,000 last year – making the perilous journey across the Channel is an intractable one and, if Mr Sunak and his colleagues manage to sort it out before the General Election, then hats will be eaten all across the country; mine included.
One clear problem has been the lack of speed in processing applications; more than 160,000 people are still in the system awaiting a decision.
And as Mr Sunak’s highly controversial Illegal Migrant Bill zips through Parliament with pressure from some Tory backbenchers to go further and faster only temporarily abated with talks planned with ministers for over the Easter parliamentary recess, the contentious plan to ship unsuccessful asylum-seekers to Rwanda is still bogged down in the courts.
Among the many connected issues focusing ministers’ minds is, of course, the “eye-watering” cost to the taxpayer of accommodating more than 50,000 migrants in some 400 local hotels at £150-a-night; that’s £6.8m a day or £2.3bn a year.
Despite the pressing need to sort this situation out, it must be pointed out that months ago the PM broached the idea of putting migrants on big boats with Cabinet colleagues, who, reportedly, “laughed[it] off the table”.
Beyond finances, the political problem now for the PM is that some of the loudest criticism about the new sites to house some 4,000 new arrivals – at RAF bases in Essex and Lincolnshire and on private land in East Sussex - is coming from within his own Cabinet, among his own MPs and in local Conservative council areas, where the additional sites have been earmarked. As well as repurposed barrack blocks, portacabins could, apparently, be used.
Mr Jenrick told MPs Mr Sunak was also “bringing forward proposals” to use the Catterick Garrison barracks in his own North Yorkshire constituency to show “leadership”. I suspect the PM, who, luckily, has a number of expensive homes, will not get quite as many accolades for his generosity as he would like.
The political hole, or should that be chasm, the Conservative Government now finds itself in was painfully displayed in the Commons mid-week when the Immigration Minister updated MPs on how the Government had its eye on alternative housing to ease matters.
“Accommodation for migrants should meet their essential living needs and nothing more,” he declared. “Because we cannot risk becoming a magnet for the millions of people who are displaced and seeking better economic prospects.”
Mr Jenrick came under fire not only from alarmed opponents in Labour and the SNP but also from ones on the Conservative benches.
Veteran Tory Sir Edward Leigh said a court injunction by the local council would be sought against the Home Office’s “thoroughly bad decision” in Lincolnshire following a similar threat from Essex.
READ MORE: Despite Channel tragedy, more desperate people are heading this way
He decried how using the ex-home of the famous Dambusters squadron could jeopardise a £300m regeneration project in the area.
Later, Andrew Bowie, the Trade Minister, took to Twitter to, unusually, attack a decision by his own Government, and decry the use of a hotel for asylum-seekers at an “inappropriate location” in his Aberdeenshire constituency, expressing his “disappointment”. Don’t be fooled by the subdued language. Mr B is angry and mindful that he has a mere 843 majority.
Outwith Parliament, the Refugee Council said: “We must ensure that people fleeing war, conflict and persecution can access safe, dignified, and appropriate accommodation while in the UK asylum system.” Portacabins?
It added the Government plan was “unworkable and will add yet more cost and chaos to the system”.
In the Commons chamber, Labour’s Yvette Cooper, gave Mr Jenrick, in parliamentary terms, both barrels in a denunciation of almost poetic dimensions when she told him: “They are flailing around in a panic, chasing headlines - barges, oil rigs, Rwanda flights, even wave machines - instead of doing the hard graft.
“They have lost control of our border security, lost control of the asylum system, lost control of their budget and lost control of themselves.”
Yet while the Shadow Home Secretary’s ire was up, just what Labour would do to abate the migrant accommodation problem is anyone’s guess. Then again, it’s one of the few joys of being in Opposition to be able to luxuriate in the Government’s plight of flapping around in political quicksand. As Sir Keir ponders his party’s electoral chances over a late-night whisky from the deckchair in his Camden garden, he might conclude that his greatest allies in Labour’s bid for power are the struggles and fault-lines within the Tories and the SNP and that his greatest enemy is those within his own party.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel