Every week brings fresh headlines about asylum seekers crossing the English Channel, plus the anger of local people when hotels that are landmarks in their communities are used to accommodate them – for months or even years.
The government says it is doing all it can to reduce the number of arrivals, but there is one tool it is neglecting. One we know will deter people from climbing into those dangerous boats in the first place, one that tackles the causes at their source.
That tool is targeted aid programmes that address why someone is desperate enough to become a refugee and to flee their home country for Europe: war, societal violence, human rights abuses, worsening poverty and, increasingly, the effects of climate breakdown.
We know these are the reasons for the rising number of Channel crossings because most people in those boats come from countries gripped by conflict and humanitarian emergencies – from Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Eritrea.
The respected humanitarian organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) estimated that 60 per cent of asylum seekers in makeshift camps in Calais last year – many attempting to reach the UK – were Sudanese people fleeing their country’s civil war.
It is also clear the government knows this; the development minister Baroness Chapman has described conflict as “one of the main drivers of migration,” warning it has “the most devastating impact, particularly on women and girls”.
And yet, an inquiry carried out by parliament’s International Development Committee, which I chair, has concluded the government has no plan to respond to this displacement crisis which is traumatising its victims and ending up on our shores.
The lack of joined-up thinking is alarming: our inquiry was told how one million Rohingya from Myanmar are still seeking sanctuary in Bangladesh, while a further one million refugees from South Sudan and Somalia are in Ethiopia. Vast numbers of displaced people are in Uganda.
Yet ministers have admitted that none of these countries are certain to receive funds as £5 billion is stripped out of the aid budget over the next two years, because there will simply not be enough money to go around.
It is deluded to believe we can slash support in these refugee hotspots – support intended to enable people to say close to home, for when conditions improve – without the knock-on effect being more asylum seekers arriving in our own country.
Similarly, the foreign aid element of the Integrated Security Fund, the mechanism to prevent tensions leading to conflict and refugee crises, is being cut by 45 per cent. The UK is also pulling out of any country with no direct link to our national security. This belief that we can ignore supposedly faraway conflicts is a serious mistake.
Of course, the UK cannot solve this global displacement emergency alone – no-one is expecting it to. But it can avoid making the problem worse, by not pulling back from attempts at tackling its root causes at this critical moment.
Other countries, including Germany and France, have recognised what is at stake by setting up special funds to support peace efforts and reduce refugee numbers, in stark contrast to the UK’s retreat.
Why doesn’t the new foreign secretary appoint a special envoy for displacement to fill this vacuum, someone to co-ordinate efforts to ensure fewer people start the wretched journey that can lead them to an asylum hotel in Essex?
This is a problem that is not going to go away. By 2030, two thirds of the world’s extreme poor are expected to be living in countries afflicted by conflict and violence, a deadly cocktail that can only result in more refugees.
Prevention is always better than cure – and investing in ways for people to feel secure and earn a living in their home country is better than expecting tougher border controls alone to stop the boats crossing the Channel.
Sarah Champion is chair of the House of Commons’ International Development Committee and Labour MP for Rotherham
This comment piece has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project
