Representing the will of the people
Des Browne speaking at the Oxford Union last Thursday
Des Browne has a tough job. He took over the position of Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality from Beverley Hughes – herself hounded out of office in April 2004 amid accusations of negligence over the particular case of a Romanian migrant worker.
Browne arrived in the Home Office with the immigration and asylum system under heavy criticism from certain sections of the press, and during the last month the issue of immigration has been at the centre of party competition in the run-up to the general election. Browne shows very few scars from his time in office. Boisterous and confident, his bellowing Scottish voice fills the room with selfassured pomp.
I received a verbose justification of Labour's new immigration policies, but not before the parameters for our interview had been fully spelled out: “You're not going to ask about that guy, are you?” he says, referring to Azim Ansari. Upon entering the Oxford Union to speak, Browne had been confronted with a candle-lit vigil and was handed petitions and letters. “I can't talk about individual cases,” he declares and glances at his press officer, who nods accordingly.
So what did Browne want to talk about? He was very keen to plug the Home Office's new strategy to tackle immigration and asylum: the faintly Stalinist-sounding ‘Five Year Plan', announced on 8th February. The Plan targets both migration and asylum.
The noticeable feature of the migration aspect is the adoption of an Australian-style points system for prospective immigrants seeking work in the United Kingdom, while increased levels of detention for failed asylum seekers, faster processing of applications and stronger border controls have been designed to improve the much-maligned asylum system. The reforms appear to centre upon a desire for the Labour government to appear tough on immigration and asylum.
Some areas of the press have described the new measures as draconian. Browne refutes any suggestion that the government is playing up to public fears and undermining our moral responsibilities as a nation. “Our asylum policy is very clear. Contrary to what the Tories are doing, we have said that we will honour our obligations under the 1951 European Convention.
We will still be a country that honours our international obligation to be a place of refuge for people who are genuinely in fear of persecution.” Despite his claims that he is firmly pro-asylum, Browne is more than happy to talk tough. “We recognise there has been a level of abuse of [the asylum] process internationally because of the illegal movement of people across borders. We have a responsibility to the people of the United Kingdom to show that we can protect that process from abuse.
“We will bear down even more hard than we have done in the past on those people who seek to abuse or take advantage of the system by processing them much more quickly and by removing them in greater numbers than we ever have done.” Browne claims the reforms to the way work visas are granted will make the process fairer and more comprehensible for the British public. “We have to persuade the people of this country that this process is to the benefit of people of the United Kingdom.
The points system is transparent and easy for people to understand.” For all Browne's sugar-coated rhetoric on his respect for the asylum system and the importance of migrant workers to the UK both culturally and economically, the government's Five Year Plan looks very much like a piece of reactionary manoeuvring – this much has been shown in the press. The key aspects are all based on restriction and deterrence, while a huge amount of faith has been put in the asylum legal system.
Browne does deny, though, any suggestion that he is embarking on a ‘bidding war' with the Tories, progressively forwarding tougher and tougher policies. “We have a highly politicised press. We have press who are overtly pro or against the government, and sometimes we have press that's against all politics. I don't have editorial control over that. What I have to do is continue to explain what we are doing. If it is misrepresented by others as some sort of ‘bidding war', I can't help that.
“I have an obligation as Minister for Immigration and Asylum to address the concerns of the British public in relation to this issue,” furthers Browne – defending the strong nature of current policy. “If I do not do that, if David Davis for the Tories doesn't do it, if we don't engage in the mainstream of British politics, then we leave that field to people who are racist and malign and they will do what they have been doing for years in that area – they will spread poison.
Essentially, Browne is providing a cloaked justification for populist policies on immigration. In order to protect Britain from racist politics, the reasoning goes, the mainstream political parties need to listen to public fears over asylum and immigration and adopt their policies accordingly. “There is a significant degree of abuse in both managed migration and in asylum and we need to address that. If we can, in my view, we can restore the confidence in the system.
Other governments in Europe couldn't deal with [the issue] and parties that were antimigrant parties [sic] made significant gains and I don't want to see that in this country.” However, if the British public are not adequately informed on this subject it is surely dangerous to pander to a populist line in order to quell their discontent? A MORI poll conducted in 2003 found that Britons have some strong misconceptions regarding immigration.
The average person polled thought first-generation immigrants make up 22 per cent of the population (the actual figure stands at about eight per cent), and believed onequarter of the world's refugees come to the UK (in fact, Britain takes between two to three per cent of refugees worldwide). Is it not a serious failure of government policy that the public understand so little about the situation? “Maybe we [politicians] have to accept responsibility for that.
But the obligation is on the media to portray the debate properly,” explained Browne. “I have the right message, in my view. The media don't have to agree with me, but they should give it a fair hearing. Then we will see, when it is properly explained to people. We haven't had a balanced debate in this country on this issue.” Browne finished the interview abruptly in order to head back to London with his entourage.
He seemed sincere when discussing the benefits of both immigration and asylum to the UK, and his fondness for cosmopolitan London. However, in the populist nature of 21stcentury politics, New Labour has recognised immigration as an area in which they are perceived to be weak. And winning elections is more important than guaranteeing the right message.
24th Feb 2005