Starmer’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists

Keir Starmer met EU’s policing body Europol in the Hague today as he laid out, for the first time, Labour’s alternative vision to tackle the small boats crisis – or, in his own words, his plan to “restore the security of Britain’s borders.”

The Labour leader vowed to crack down on people-smuggling gangs both through deepening intelligence ties with Europe and with a legal reclassification: Labour would treat people smugglers like terrorists by giving the National Crime Agency expanded powers to freeze their assets and place restrictions on their movement.

He would also seek an EU-wide returns agreement for asylum seekers who arrive in Britain, scrap the Rwanda plan and reverse the Tories’ “unsustainable” plan to ban everyone who has already reached the UK via small boat from claiming asylum in Britain. Instead, Starmer would focus on processing their asylum claims more quickly. 

It’s fair to say that Sunak’s pledge to “stop the small boats” isn’t shaping up too well, what with over 23,000 migrants crossing the channel so far this year. But will Starmer’s plan carry more credibility with voters? 

Finding a fresh legal angle to tackle criminal gangs could work in the Labour leader’s favour, as it gives him a chance to push his background in dealing with cross-border crime: “I was involved in this sort of work when I was director of public prosecutions,” he told The Times today. 

Scrapping the Rwanda plan could also appeal to a wide range of voters. Aside from those who brand it inhumane, even many of the most hardline anti-immigration voters are starting to think the scheme, which remains bogged down in legal challenges, is a bad use of money: despite already costing the taxpayer £140million, not a single person has boarded a flight to Rwanda yet. 

His promise to tackle the asylum claims backlog isn’t novel. Sunak has pledged to do the same, so we’ll have to wait on the details – purportedly coming Friday – to see if Starmer’s method for doing so sounds any more persuasive. 

As for pledging to reverse the government’s Illegal Migration Bill, Starmer would be scrapping what is not only criticised as an inhumane policy but also a largely ineffective one. While the government is refusing to process asylum claims from any migrants who have entered Britain via illegal routes, it does not – except in the case of Albania – have returns agreements in place with other countries to deport them. Which means they are trapped in limbo in the UK, indefinitely.

As for Starmer’s plan to seek an EU-wide returns agreement, this is perhaps a little easier for the government to pick holes in.

When looking at the issue of migration from a less UK-centric perspective, there’s certainly a case to be made that this is a fairer policy. Yet voters who envision this as a way to swiftly return all migrants who cross the Channel back to France would almost certainly be disappointed. 

Negotiating any EU-wide returns deal would likely also involve Britain accepting a migrant quota. Indeed, Brussels is already working on an agreement to ensure migrants arriving in Europe are spread more evenly between member states. 

And it’s worth remembering that Britain is not, by a long way, carrying the heaviest load. Countries such as Greece and Italy are the ones which stand to gain from Europe-wide co-operation on this front. In the past two days, more than 7,000 migrants have arrived on the tiny Sicilian island of Lampedusa.

Starmer is right to recognise that small boat crossings is a Europe-wide problem, and not one that can be solved through national solutions. Certainly cracking down on the likes of people-smuggling gangs requires cross-border co-operation.

What would, however, be naive is to assume that negotiating a returns agreement with Brussels would result in a smaller portion of Europe-bound asylum seekers settling in Britain. 

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life