On Monday night, MPs voted to back the Immigration and Asylum Bill at its second reading in the Commons. Andy Burnham, who is expected to become prime minister next week, voted in support of it – raising questions about the direction his government will take on immigration.
Living in Greater Manchester, I have watched Burnham build his political identity around listening to communities and tackling inequality. I have valued his willingness to talk about difficult issues, including migration, without using divisive rhetoric.
In this context, his support for this bill is concerning. The controversial proposal has already drawn significant pushback from within Burnham’s own party. Some 14 Labour MPs voted against the bill, more than 120 chose not to vote on it at all, and nearly 80 signed a letter urging Burnham to rethink wider immigration reforms when he enters No 10.
The question now is whether his vote signals that as PM, Burnham will push ahead with inherited plans for an asylum system increasingly built around deterrence and insecurity, or whether he will bring the principles he has championed in Manchester into national policy.
The government says its immigration reforms will help people to integrate, find work, become independent and contribute. Refugees want those things too. But you cannot tell people to integrate while designing a system that keeps them looking over their shoulder.
I come to this debate having spent the past decade working with communities welcoming refugees. In 2017, I was part of one of the earliest Community Sponsorship groups in the UK to welcome a refugee family. Since then, I have seen consistently what helps people rebuild their lives and what makes that journey harder.
An asylum system built on insecurity
One of the more controversial proposed immigration reforms is to retrospectively double the time many foreign nationals living in the UK must wait before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain, which could see some refugees forced to wait 20 years.
As of March, they will have their need for protection reviewed every 30 months during this time, and those from countries that are deemed ‘safe’ will be expected to return. And the Immigration and Asylum Bill would require many of those who are granted asylum to pay the government around £10,000 for the accommodation and support they received while awaiting a decision before they can apply for settlement. The plans come after the suspension of refugee family reunion has already left more than 16,000 people unable to reunite with loved ones in the UK.
These are not isolated policies. Together, they create an asylum system defined by prolonged uncertainty. It is impossible to ask someone to put down roots, invest in a career or integrate into a community when their future remains uncertain for decades.
A person recognised as a refugee is often starting over with very little. They may be learning English, trying to find somewhere permanent to live, looking for work or attempting to have qualifications gained overseas recognised. They may be supporting children who have experienced war, persecution or displacement. These reforms risk placing new uncertainty and financial obligations in their path.
The consequences extend beyond individual refugees; a recent joint inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration and Poverty warned that the government’s recent and proposed immigration reforms may undermine its own ambitions to reduce child poverty and end homelessness.
That should concern all of us. If a family is pushed into poverty, it places strain on schools and local services. If people are unable to access stable housing, pressure falls on councils and homelessness services. If people are kept in prolonged insecurity and separated from their families, it becomes harder to build the trust and sense of belonging that underpin cohesive communities.
There are also serious questions about access to justice. The bill would move first-instance immigration appeals from the existing tribunal system – where cases are heard by qualified judges – to a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority using adjudicators who would not be required to have any legal qualifications.
The government argues this will tackle a backlog in appeal hearings. While we can all agree delays are unacceptable, speed cannot come at the expense of fairness or independent judicial scrutiny. Asylum cases are complex and require specialist legal expertise and proper understanding of the risks people may face if returned. When deciding if someone’s return may place them in danger or pose a risk to their life, robust independent oversight is not an inconvenience. It is a basic safeguard.
Safe routes need ambition
If the government genuinely wants fewer dangerous journeys, it must pair a fair asylum system with safe and accessible alternatives for those seeking protection. Here, there is an opportunity in the bill. The commitment to creating new safe and regular routes to seek asylum in the UK, including through Community Sponsorship, should be welcomed.
For a decade, we have advocated for communities to have a greater role in welcoming refugees, including through named sponsorship. This has been a key advocacy priority for the Community Sponsorship Alliance, of which my charity is a member. Communities repeatedly tell us that they want to help people reach safety. We have seen it through Community Sponsorship and on an extraordinary scale through the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
But safe routes must be meaningful and ambitious. If the government is serious about reducing dangerous journeys, it cannot offer small, tightly capped routes that are inaccessible to most people who need protection. Doing so will continue to force desperate people to look for other ways to reach safety.
Community Sponsorship has shown that when communities are given the tools and support to welcome refugees well, they step forward. The government should be ambitious about harnessing that willingness, not treating safe routes as a small humanitarian exception to an asylum system increasingly built around deterrence.
The test for Burnham
As Manchester mayor, Burnham established his reputation on the idea that government should invest in communities and listen to people who feel ignored. Those principles should not stop at the asylum system.
A fair and effective asylum system should help people granted protection rebuild their lives, become independent and contribute as quickly as possible, while keeping families together wherever possible. It should protect access to fair and independent decision-making. It should invest in the communities doing the work of integration. And it should create safe routes at a scale that gives people genuine alternatives to dangerous journeys.
Immigration policy must recognise that protection, integration and contribution go hand in hand. We cannot open safe routes with one hand while building an asylum system around insecurity with the other. After more than a decade of working alongside communities welcoming refugees, I know this: stability helps people rebuild, integrate and contribute. Insecurity undermines all three.
