politicscouk--2020-11-20--There should be no monopolies in a pandemic

Governments from across the world are meeting today to discuss a landmark proposal from India and South Africa that could help turn the tide against covid .
Medical tools such as respirators , ventilators , testing kits , vaccines and treatments are all vital in the fight and yet access to these tools is already being hampered by intellectual property rights .
Patents restrict supply to originator companies , preventing others from making or selling the same product during the patent period .
In a pandemic , this will lead to scarcity at a time when global demand for medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspend patents on covid heath tools couldn ’ t have come sooner .
Here in the UK , a potential covid treatment has been rationed due to inadequate supply .
It has been priced at £1,802 for a five-day course in most countries by drug maker Gilead .
This is a prohibitively high price for many health systems , even though the treatment course can be manufactured for as little as £6.93 .
The situation will be even worse when it comes to vaccines .
Early results that show Pfizer/BionTech and Moderna have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But they are only going to make a difference if we can secure global access to them .
If these vaccines are too expensive for health systems in low and middle-income countries , or if they are rationed because the company and their contracted manufacturers can ’ t make enough , then their value is limited .
For Pfizer and BioNTech , they can only produce 50 million doses for 2020 and 1.3bn for 2021 .
Because this is a two-dose vaccine , that means only 25 million can receive it this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
This is nowhere near enough to meet global demand , especially when most of these doses have already been hoarded by rich countries through advanced purchase deals , leaving nothing for lower income countries .
Without Pfizer sharing their intellectual property and knowledge on how to produce the vaccine , this will be a vaccine just for the rich .
The major underlying cause of all these issues is the system we have for developing medicines , a system which too often places profiteering before patient need , and where exclusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which artificially restrict supply and drive up prices .
Scaling-up manufacturing of covid vaccines , as well as diagnostics and therapies , requires pharmaceutical companies to give up their monopolies , share their intellectual property rights and spread the knowledge of how these tools can be produced .
This will speed up research and development and maximise manufacturing capacity while also making products more affordable by enabling generic competition to help drive down prices .
It is against this backdrop that the Indian and South African governments have asked the World Trade Organisation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose to neither grant nor enforce patents related to covid health technologies until global herd immunity is achieved .
The aim of this proposal is to prevent intellectual property barriers from restricting access to covid health technologies and ensure all health systems are equipped with the tools they need to end this pandemic .
The historical and recent actions by pharmaceutical corporations shows that we can not rely on their exclusive rights and limited voluntary actions to end this global pandemic .
We urgently need public health-driven solutions based on collaboration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing capacity for covid health technologies .
This proposal could help put an end to countries competing against each other to get limited supplies of vaccines for their citizens .
Rather than governments fighting to get a bigger slice of the pie , let 's get big pharma to share the recipe .
Over recent months the UK has rightly led calls for global collaboration and solidarity to end this pandemic .
Britain is a leading funder of the Covax Facility that aims to support countries to procure covid vaccines .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at managing global access to future vaccines if there are enough doses to go around .
If the UK and other rich countries refuse to support the proposal at the WTO , it 'll actively undermine these global efforts .
From my work on the international development committee , it 's been made undeniably clear to me that access can not be an afterthought .
Whether it 's the HIV-Aids crisis or the eye-watering prices of some cancer drugs , we have learned time and again that intellectual property rights can not take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not afford to let the same mistakes happen in our response to covid .
We are only at the beginning of tackling this pandemic and we need a longer-term solution that focuses on enabling a rapid scaling-up of production by multiple manufacturers across many countries to meet global demand .
That 's why today I joined parliamentarians from different parties and from both Houses to urge the government to support the proposal to suspend patents .
Let 's hope our government stands on the right side of history .
Navendu Mishra is Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the international development committee .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Navendu Mishra
Governments from across the world are meeting today to discuss a landmark proposal from India and South Africa that could help turn the tide against covid. Medical tools such as respirators, ventilators, testing kits, vaccines and treatments are all vital in the fight and yet access to these tools is already being hampered by intellectual property rights. Patents restrict supply to originator companies, preventing others from making or selling the same product during the patent period. In a pandemic, this will lead to scarcity at a time when global demand for medical tools is colossal.
The proposal to suspend patents on covid heath tools couldn’t have come sooner. Here in the UK, a potential covid treatment has been rationed due to inadequate supply. It has been priced at £1,802 for a five-day course in most countries by drug maker Gilead. This is a prohibitively high price for many health systems, even though the treatment course can be manufactured for as little as £6.93.
The situation will be even worse when it comes to vaccines. Early results that show Pfizer/BionTech and Moderna have found an effective vaccine are very encouraging. But they are only going to make a difference if we can secure global access to them. If these vaccines are too expensive for health systems in low and middle-income countries, or if they are rationed because the company and their contracted manufacturers can’t make enough, then their value is limited.
For Pfizer and BioNTech, they can only produce 50 million doses for 2020 and 1.3bn for 2021. Because this is a two-dose vaccine, that means only 25 million can receive it this year and just 650 million people next year. This is nowhere near enough to meet global demand, especially when most of these doses have already been hoarded by rich countries through advanced purchase deals, leaving nothing for lower income countries. Without Pfizer sharing their intellectual property and knowledge on how to produce the vaccine, this will be a vaccine just for the rich.
The major underlying cause of all these issues is the system we have for developing medicines, a system which too often places profiteering before patient need, and where exclusive intellectual property rights lead to market monopolies which artificially restrict supply and drive up prices.
Scaling-up manufacturing of covid vaccines, as well as diagnostics and therapies, requires pharmaceutical companies to give up their monopolies, share their intellectual property rights and spread the knowledge of how these tools can be produced. This will speed up research and development and maximise manufacturing capacity while also making products more affordable by enabling generic competition to help drive down prices.
It is against this backdrop that the Indian and South African governments have asked the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to allow all countries to choose to neither grant nor enforce patents related to covid health technologies until global herd immunity is achieved. The aim of this proposal is to prevent intellectual property barriers from restricting access to covid health technologies and ensure all health systems are equipped with the tools they need to end this pandemic. The historical and recent actions by pharmaceutical corporations shows that we cannot rely on their exclusive rights and limited voluntary actions to end this global pandemic.
We urgently need public health-driven solutions based on collaboration and solidarity with the overall aim of increasing manufacturing capacity for covid health technologies. This proposal could help put an end to countries competing against each other to get limited supplies of vaccines for their citizens. Rather than governments fighting to get a bigger slice of the pie, let's get big pharma to share the recipe.
Over recent months the UK has rightly led calls for global collaboration and solidarity to end this pandemic. Britain is a leading funder of the Covax Facility that aims to support countries to procure covid vaccines. However, the facility can only be truly effective at managing global access to future vaccines if there are enough doses to go around. If the UK and other rich countries refuse to support the proposal at the WTO, it'll actively undermine these global efforts.
From my work on the international development committee, it's been made undeniably clear to me that access cannot be an afterthought. Whether it's the HIV-Aids crisis or the eye-watering prices of some cancer drugs, we have learned time and again that intellectual property rights cannot take precedence over human rights. We cannot afford to let the same mistakes happen in our response to covid.
We are only at the beginning of tackling this pandemic and we need a longer-term solution that focuses on enabling a rapid scaling-up of production by multiple manufacturers across many countries to meet global demand. That's why today I joined parliamentarians from different parties and from both Houses to urge the government to support the proposal to suspend patents. Let's hope our government stands on the right side of history.
Navendu Mishra is Labour MP for Stockport and a member of the international development committee.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-23--Biden presidency brings hope for the Kurds

`` Saudis and Israelis worry , Iranians and Palestinians hope '' .
So read one headline in the aftermath of Joe Biden 's US election victory .
From the Abraham Accords and the Yemeni Civil War to the Iran nuclear deal and relations with Riyadh , US Middle Eastern policy is almost certainly facing significant change under a Biden administration .
Political soothsayers will of course be closely looking at Biden 's track record as an indication of how his policies may take shape .
And for the Kurds in particular , this will make hugely encouraging reading .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-Kurdish president to take office yet .
Over the course of his career , both as a senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice president , the president-elect has consistently demonstrated a deep understanding of , and sympathy for , the Kurdish people .
Biden 's concerns for the Kurds go back to the Gulf War , a military endeavour he was opposed to and during which he highlighted his concern for the fate of the Kurdish community .
Throughout the later Iraq War in 2003 , which he supported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Kurds , arguing they had suffered more than anyone at the hands of Saddam Hussein .
In 2002 , while visiting Iraqi Kurdistan , he famously declared that `` the mountains are not your only friends '' .
Biden 's actions have matched his words .
As vice president , and one of the Obama administration 's senior figures overseeing policy in Iraq , he visited Iraq no less than 24 times , forging a particularly strong relationship with the late president Jalal Talabani and former president Masoud Barzani .
Short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been as vocal a proponent of the Kurdish people as the constraints of US diplomacy will allow .
Indeed Biden ’ s support for the Kurds of Syria in recent years has been so resolute that the Erdogan-sympathetic Turkish press have branded him an `` enemy of Turkey '' .
In contrast , Donald Trump 's administration has shown at best disregard and at worst disdain for the Kurdish movement .
In 2016 , he said he was a `` big fan '' of Kurdish forces but was already at that stage looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close relationship with Turkey , Kurdistan 's modern-day regional nemesis .
Former national security adviser John Bolton wrote in his book that Trump was already declaring his dislike for the Kurds in 2017 .
The great betrayal came two years later , when Trump authorised a US withdrawal from northern Syria that left regional Kurdish forces at the mercy of a Turkish offensive .
His justification ?
That the Kurds `` didn ’ t help us with Normandy '' .
The question of whether a new administration in the White House will actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their social , security and political goals is n't black and white .
But it does have ramifications for Kurds worldwide , including the 50,000 here in the UK , whose political identities are very much intertwined with that of the Kurdish homeland .
Biden has never publicly vocalised any support for Kurdish independence .
The restraints of broader US foreign policy considerations means he probably never will .
When Biden was asked in 2017 why , under the Obama administration , he had n't done more to help the Kurds in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply : `` Turkey '' .
The country remains an important US security partner and member of Nato .
With the current Turkish administration vehemently opposed to greater Kurdish self-determination , realpolitik will always take precedence .
Furthermore , Biden is yet to engage on any serious level with the Kurdish communities and movement outside of Syria and Iraq .
Any potential future engagement with the Kurdish community in Iran , for example , may well tie in with the new administration 's approach to the 2015 nuclear deal – and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be .
However , what we do know is that the Biden administration is likely to take a much stronger stance against Turkish adventurism and aggression than his predecessor .
US support in the form of aid , protection and military equipment for Syrian Kurds fighting Isis will continue and may increase .
Biden may also push for more Kurdish representation in deciding the futures of both Syria and Iraq .
The Kurdish community worldwide , including here in the UK , should be celebrating Biden 's election with a renewed sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kurdish independence is off the table and the situation on the ground may not dramatically change .
During the Trump administration , we lived in a cycle of Machiavellian post-truth politics , in which facts became superseded by falsity and traditional loyalties were brushed aside without hesitation .
Biden , on the other hand , has proven himself a genuine and resilient ally of the Kurdish people – having extended a hand of friendship not out of political opportunity , but out of principal .
The Kurdish people pride themselves on the values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these values again instilled in the White House , we look forward to a positive new chapter in US-Kurdish relations and a strengthened Kurdish identity and influence across the region .
Ruwayda Mustafah is a Kurdish-born political activist and campaigner , specialising in issues relating to gender , governance , Kurdish rights , women ’ s representation and social inequality .
You can visit her website here and follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners .

By Ruwayda Mustafah
"Saudis and Israelis worry, Iranians and Palestinians hope". So read one headline in the aftermath of Joe Biden's US election victory. From the Abraham Accords and the Yemeni Civil War to the Iran nuclear deal and relations with Riyadh, US Middle Eastern policy is almost certainly facing significant change under a Biden administration.
Political soothsayers will of course be closely looking at Biden's track record as an indication of how his policies may take shape. And for the Kurds in particular, this will make hugely encouraging reading. Indeed, Biden may well be the most pro-Kurdish president to take office yet.
Over the course of his career, both as a senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and vice president, the president-elect has consistently demonstrated a deep understanding of, and sympathy for, the Kurdish people.
Biden's concerns for the Kurds go back to the Gulf War, a military endeavour he was opposed to and during which he highlighted his concern for the fate of the Kurdish community. Throughout the later Iraq War in 2003, which he supported, he was again vocal in his concern for the Kurds, arguing they had suffered more than anyone at the hands of Saddam Hussein. In 2002, while visiting Iraqi Kurdistan, he famously declared that "the mountains are not your only friends".
Biden's actions have matched his words. As vice president, and one of the Obama administration's senior figures overseeing policy in Iraq, he visited Iraq no less than 24 times, forging a particularly strong relationship with the late president Jalal Talabani and former president Masoud Barzani.
Short of supporting Kurdish independence, Biden has been as vocal a proponent of the Kurdish people as the constraints of US diplomacy will allow. Indeed Biden’s support for the Kurds of Syria in recent years has been so resolute that the Erdogan-sympathetic Turkish press have branded him an "enemy of Turkey".
In contrast, Donald Trump's administration has shown at best disregard and at worst disdain for the Kurdish movement. In 2016, he said he was a "big fan" of Kurdish forces but was already at that stage looking to reap the political fruits of a close relationship with Turkey, Kurdistan's modern-day regional nemesis. Former national security adviser John Bolton wrote in his book that Trump was already declaring his dislike for the Kurds in 2017.
The great betrayal came two years later, when Trump authorised a US withdrawal from northern Syria that left regional Kurdish forces at the mercy of a Turkish offensive. His justification? That the Kurds "didn’t help us with Normandy".
The question of whether a new administration in the White House will actively work with Kurdistan to help them achieve their social, security and political goals isn't black and white. But it does have ramifications for Kurds worldwide, including the 50,000 here in the UK, whose political identities are very much intertwined with that of the Kurdish homeland.
Biden has never publicly vocalised any support for Kurdish independence. The restraints of broader US foreign policy considerations means he probably never will.
When Biden was asked in 2017 why, under the Obama administration, he hadn't done more to help the Kurds in their quest for greater autonomy, he replied simply: "Turkey". The country remains an important US security partner and member of Nato. With the current Turkish administration vehemently opposed to greater Kurdish self-determination, realpolitik will always take precedence.
Furthermore, Biden is yet to engage on any serious level with the Kurdish communities and movement outside of Syria and Iraq. Any potential future engagement with the Kurdish community in Iran, for example, may well tie in with the new administration's approach to the 2015 nuclear deal – and it is too early to say what the approach may be.
However, what we do know is that the Biden administration is likely to take a much stronger stance against Turkish adventurism and aggression than his predecessor. US support in the form of aid, protection and military equipment for Syrian Kurds fighting Isis will continue and may increase. Biden may also push for more Kurdish representation in deciding the futures of both Syria and Iraq.
The Kurdish community worldwide, including here in the UK, should be celebrating Biden's election with a renewed sense of hope and optimism – even if Kurdish independence is off the table and the situation on the ground may not dramatically change.
During the Trump administration, we lived in a cycle of Machiavellian post-truth politics, in which facts became superseded by falsity and traditional loyalties were brushed aside without hesitation. Biden, on the other hand, has proven himself a genuine and resilient ally of the Kurdish people – having extended a hand of friendship not out of political opportunity, but out of principal.
The Kurdish people pride themselves on the values of democracy and pluralism, and with these values again instilled in the White House, we look forward to a positive new chapter in US-Kurdish relations and a strengthened Kurdish identity and influence across the region.
Ruwayda Mustafah is a Kurdish-born political activist and campaigner, specialising in issues relating to gender, governance, Kurdish rights, women’s representation and social inequality. You can visit her website here and follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-24--Ditching the 0.7% aid pledge is the end of Global Britain

The prime minister 's 'levelling up ' agenda was in the news last week , with the launch of a ten-point plan that promised a green industrial revolution .
The initiative was pitched squarely at Red Wall seats in the north of England that have suffered from years of economic decline and are now being especially hurt by covid .
There 's much in the plan that people of all political stripes should welcome .
If implemented , it has the potential to generate new jobs and help set the UK on a trajectory to a more sustainable future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Glasgow next November , the pressure is on to demonstrate how Britain will meet the Paris commitments and convince other major carbon-emitters to do the same .
Yet this desire to narrow a widening gap in wealth , health and opportunity seems to have been jettisoned when it comes to the government 's actions beyond our borders .
Hard on the heels of a £3 billion cut in the aid budget this summer , the Treasury is now trailing its intention to backslide on the promise to spend 0.7 % of national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could n't be any worse for people in the poorest countries .
The pandemic has triggered the biggest increase in extreme poverty in a generation .
The World Bank estimates that another 125 million people could be added to the ranks of the poor in 2021 .
Hunger and malaria are rising , and the UN projects that as many as 11 million girls may never return to education after school closures .
While political commentators talk about aid cuts in terms of throwing 'red meat ' to different wings of the Conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember that real people 's lives are at stake .
The timing is also very odd when Britain is trying to forge a new role in the world , as the Brexit transition comes to an end and Joe Biden readies himself for the US presidency .
The prime minister has sought to communicate a confident vision of a Britain that is globally engaged , influential and effective on the international stage .
Slashing the aid budget further feels more like little England than Great Britain : a retreat from our global role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some people will argue that reducing aid spending to 0.5 % of national income is essential to help cover the costs of responding to covid here in the UK .
This has been rightly been met with scepticism , including among many Conservative aid champions .
£4 billion does not go very far towards the over £200 billion cost of the chancellor 's economic rescue .
More fundamentally , it is short-sighted .
The pandemic has given a shock to the global economy on a scale not seen since the 1930s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes poorer countries that do n't have the same resources to launch their own well-funded recovery plans .
From investment in immunisation to restoring livelihoods , aid will play a critical part in getting the poorest countries back on their feet .
Meeting our promises on aid is the right thing to do , in times of crisis as much as times of stability .
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said , a promise to the poor is particularly sacred .
But it is also the smart thing to do , in a world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up between different parts of Britain is urgent and necessary .
But the agenda to tackle poverty and spread opportunity should n't end there .
Patrick Watt is Christian Aid 's director of Policy and Public Affairs .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Patrick Watt
The prime minister's 'levelling up' agenda was in the news last week, with the launch of a ten-point plan that promised a green industrial revolution. The initiative was pitched squarely at Red Wall seats in the north of England that have suffered from years of economic decline and are now being especially hurt by covid.
There's much in the plan that people of all political stripes should welcome. If implemented, it has the potential to generate new jobs and help set the UK on a trajectory to a more sustainable future. With Boris Johnson hosting UN climate talks in Glasgow next November, the pressure is on to demonstrate how Britain will meet the Paris commitments and convince other major carbon-emitters to do the same.
Yet this desire to narrow a widening gap in wealth, health and opportunity seems to have been jettisoned when it comes to the government's actions beyond our borders. Hard on the heels of a £3 billion cut in the aid budget this summer, the Treasury is now trailing its intention to backslide on the promise to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid.
The timing couldn't be any worse for people in the poorest countries. The pandemic has triggered the biggest increase in extreme poverty in a generation. The World Bank estimates that another 125 million people could be added to the ranks of the poor in 2021. Hunger and malaria are rising, and the UN projects that as many as 11 million girls may never return to education after school closures. While political commentators talk about aid cuts in terms of throwing 'red meat' to different wings of the Conservative party, they would do well to remember that real people's lives are at stake.
The timing is also very odd when Britain is trying to forge a new role in the world, as the Brexit transition comes to an end and Joe Biden readies himself for the US presidency. The prime minister has sought to communicate a confident vision of a Britain that is globally engaged, influential and effective on the international stage. Slashing the aid budget further feels more like little England than Great Britain: a retreat from our global role, rather than an embrace of it.
Some people will argue that reducing aid spending to 0.5% of national income is essential to help cover the costs of responding to covid here in the UK. This has been rightly been met with scepticism, including among many Conservative aid champions. £4 billion does not go very far towards the over £200 billion cost of the chancellor's economic rescue. More fundamentally, it is short-sighted. The pandemic has given a shock to the global economy on a scale not seen since the 1930s. A broad-based recovery is urgently needed which includes poorer countries that don't have the same resources to launch their own well-funded recovery plans. From investment in immunisation to restoring livelihoods, aid will play a critical part in getting the poorest countries back on their feet.
Meeting our promises on aid is the right thing to do, in times of crisis as much as times of stability. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, a promise to the poor is particularly sacred. But it is also the smart thing to do, in a world that is interdependent and volatile. Levelling up between different parts of Britain is urgent and necessary. But the agenda to tackle poverty and spread opportunity shouldn't end there.
Patrick Watt is Christian Aid's director of Policy and Public Affairs.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-25--Spending review: Brexit will damage the parts of the economy which survived covid

It was an extraordinary thing to behold .
We 've just 37 days until Britain leaves the single market and the customs union - the biggest single change in the country 's trading status we 've seen in 40 years .
And yet the chancellor did not once mention Brexit during his spending review statement to the House of Commons .
It was as if it was n't happening .
Perhaps he was distracted .
The figures released today about the impact of the coronavirus on the British economy were startling , even if we knew they were coming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , the largest fall for over 300 years .
Economic output is not expected to return to pre-crisis levels until the fourth quarter of 2022 .
The UK will borrow a total of £394 billion this year , equivalent to 19 % of GDP .
Underlying debt is forecast to continue rising every year , reaching 97.5 % of GDP in 2025-26 .
For a while , Brexiters in government believed that the extraordinary level of hurt the coronavirus inflicted on the economy could have a useful side-effect for Brexit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Britain 's departure from the EU - either with or without a deal - could be hidden away , overshadowed by the carnage of the pandemic .
This seemed to fit with Rishi Sunak 's silence today about the end of the transition period .
It is a cynical and irresponsible argument .
But it is also false .
If you put his speech to one side and instead looked at the Office for Budget Responsibilities ( OBR ) economic and fiscal outlook , you can see why .
The OBR forecast is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friction at the border early next year predominantly as a consequence of no-deal Brexit and imagines that a deal would lead to a `` smooth transition '' .
This is not quite right .
The government has chosen to leave the customs union and single market , meaning that exporters will face checks for safety and security documentation , customs papers and , in some cases , regulatory compliance .
This will apply whether there is a deal or not , as ministers have recently begun to state publicly .
But nevertheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concealed by covid .
It is significantly worsened by it .
This is because Brexit affects different parts of the economy to those hit by the virus .
During the last year , face-to-face services like hospitality , entertainment and transport were the worst affected .
Sectors like manufacturing and financial services were able to defend themselves fairly well by having people work from home or practice social distancing in the workplace .
But it is this latter set which is most affected by Brexit , as they lose frictionless access to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit is `` largely additive to that suffered from coronavirus '' , the report says .
We have imposed one crisis onto another .
The report found that the chaos of covid got in the way of government and businesses preparing for the end of transition .
This , of course , was precisely why the government was told to extend transition earlier in the year - something it failed to do .
Now we see the consequence .
Business and government have been `` distracted by the need to deal with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the OBR found .
Personnel and resources which would have gone towards Brexit were diverted to the pandemic .
Cash reserves and inventories were run down , making firms more vulnerable to shocks .
The OBR forecast that a no-deal Brexit would reduce real GDP by a further two per cent next year .
What 's interesting about the forecast is the difference between the short-term and long-term effect .
The report concludes that the impact of checks at the border will dissipate over the course of the year as businesses get used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start learning exactly what they need to do to avoid delays , or maybe even find other routes to market that avoid Dover-Calais .
But the long-term hit to productivity - an area the British economy already struggles with - builds slowly , leaving output around 1.5 % lower than in its standard forecast after five years , then continuing to grow from there .
It 's not just a short-term impact .
Brexit leaves permanent scars .
the report predicts costs to the economy from `` heightened uncertainty '' and `` tighter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` reflecting the prospective loss of some export markets '' and a rise in structural unemployment `` as more resources need to be reallocated from declining to expanding sectors '' as a result of Brexit .
Under no-deal , unemployment would rise above eight per cent next year .
It would delay the point at which Britain returns to its pre-virus output peak , no matter how the economic effects of the pandemic continue to play out .
In the worst case scenario it stretches to the second quarter of 2025 , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal .
It 's a grim prospectus , which goes some way to explaining why Sunak did n't want to talk about it this afternoon .
There is , in the end , some truth in the cynical view that covid could smother the impact of Brexit : the virus does indeed have a bigger effect on the economy .
It is monstrous in what it is doing to us .
But then , no-one picked covid .
No-one was responsible for it .
Brexit , on the other hand , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave the customs union and single market , or the refusal to extend the transition .
The impact will not be covered-up by the pandemic .
We will simply be taking those parts of the economy which managed to avoid the damage of the virus and inflicting a completely different kind of economic pain on them , for no discernible reason at all .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

It was an extraordinary thing to behold. We've just 37 days until Britain leaves the single market and the customs union – the biggest single change in the country's trading status we've seen in 40 years. And yet the chancellor did not once mention Brexit during his spending review statement to the House of Commons. It was as if it wasn't happening.
Perhaps he was distracted. The figures released today about the impact of the coronavirus on the British economy were startling, even if we knew they were coming. The economy will contract by 11.3% this year, the largest fall for over 300 years. Economic output is not expected to return to pre-crisis levels until the fourth quarter of 2022. The UK will borrow a total of £394 billion this year, equivalent to 19% of GDP. Underlying debt is forecast to continue rising every year, reaching 97.5% of GDP in 2025-26.
For a while, Brexiters in government believed that the extraordinary level of hurt the coronavirus inflicted on the economy could have a useful side-effect for Brexit. It meant that the damage inflicted by Britain's departure from the EU – either with or without a deal – could be hidden away, overshadowed by the carnage of the pandemic. This seemed to fit with Rishi Sunak's silence today about the end of the transition period.
It is a cynical and irresponsible argument. But it is also false. If you put his speech to one side and instead looked at the Office for Budget Responsibilities (OBR) economic and fiscal outlook, you can see why.
The OBR forecast is not perfect. It seems to treat friction at the border early next year predominantly as a consequence of no-deal Brexit and imagines that a deal would lead to a "smooth transition". This is not quite right. The government has chosen to leave the customs union and single market, meaning that exporters will face checks for safety and security documentation, customs papers and, in some cases, regulatory compliance. This will apply whether there is a deal or not, as ministers have recently begun to state publicly.
But nevertheless, the report demonstrates that Brexit is not concealed by covid. It is significantly worsened by it.
This is because Brexit affects different parts of the economy to those hit by the virus. During the last year, face-to-face services like hospitality, entertainment and transport were the worst affected. Sectors like manufacturing and financial services were able to defend themselves fairly well by having people work from home or practice social distancing in the workplace. But it is this latter set which is most affected by Brexit, as they lose frictionless access to the EU market. The impact of no-deal Brexit is "largely additive to that suffered from coronavirus", the report says. We have imposed one crisis onto another.
The report found that the chaos of covid got in the way of government and businesses preparing for the end of transition. This, of course, was precisely why the government was told to extend transition earlier in the year – something it failed to do. Now we see the consequence. Business and government have been "distracted by the need to deal with the disruption caused by the virus", the OBR found. Personnel and resources which would have gone towards Brexit were diverted to the pandemic. Cash reserves and inventories were run down, making firms more vulnerable to shocks.
The OBR forecast that a no-deal Brexit would reduce real GDP by a further two per cent next year. What's interesting about the forecast is the difference between the short-term and long-term effect. The report concludes that the impact of checks at the border will dissipate over the course of the year as businesses get used to the new system. They'll start learning exactly what they need to do to avoid delays, or maybe even find other routes to market that avoid Dover-Calais. But the long-term hit to productivity – an area the British economy already struggles with – builds slowly, leaving output around 1.5% lower than in its standard forecast after five years, then continuing to grow from there. It's not just a short-term impact. Brexit leaves permanent scars.
The report predicts costs to the economy from "heightened uncertainty" and "tighter credit conditions", lower business investment "reflecting the prospective loss of some export markets" and a rise in structural unemployment "as more resources need to be reallocated from declining to expanding sectors" as a result of Brexit.
Under no-deal, unemployment would rise above eight per cent next year. It would delay the point at which Britain returns to its pre-virus output peak, no matter how the economic effects of the pandemic continue to play out. In the worst case scenario it stretches to the second quarter of 2025, a full three years later than under a deal.
It's a grim prospectus, which goes some way to explaining why Sunak didn't want to talk about it this afternoon.
There is, in the end, some truth in the cynical view that covid could smother the impact of Brexit: the virus does indeed have a bigger effect on the economy. It is monstrous in what it is doing to us.
But then, no-one picked covid. No-one was responsible for it. Brexit, on the other hand, is a choice, as is the decision to leave the customs union and single market, or the refusal to extend the transition. The impact will not be covered-up by the pandemic. We will simply be taking those parts of the economy which managed to avoid the damage of the virus and inflicting a completely different kind of economic pain on them, for no discernible reason at all.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-25--Migration and change: The counter-intuitive findings of a new local study

How much do changes in migration at the local level alter the politics of immigration ?
The conventional wisdom is that they do not change a great deal .
It 's said that deprivation , education , cultural values and news intake all play a much bigger role .
To take one truism , for example , many of the places most supportive of Brexit were among the least diverse .
To the extent that the 2016 EU referendum was a proxy for attitudes to immigration , those areas most hostile to freedom of movement were not the ones experiencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remain-voting counterparts in super-diverse cities .
But what if this analysis only looks at part of the picture ?
Academic studies have found that it is not the level of immigration that alters attitudes , but rather the pace of change .
They point out that already-diverse places are often positive about migration , whereas places becoming more diverse tend to be negative .
Our new analysis , on the other hand , suggests a counterintuitive story .
Over the last decade , as constituencies have become more diverse , they have switched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this change is a new phenomenon .
Meanwhile , those seats that are diverse but are getting demographically whiter have turned a deeper hue of Labour red .
Our study , Red Walls falling and the parallels with migration and gentrification , looks at this question over the course of the 2010s – a decade which saw four general elections .
To do this we use Origins , a name recognition tool presenting a live picture of the ethno-cultural makeup of each community .
The report charts changes in the size of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in each seat across England and Wales .
It then looks for parallels between these and the cumulative Labour-Tory swings during the same period .
This was a decade in which , on the surface of it , the Conservatives had the upper hand .
But there were big shifts beneath the surface and the swing to the Tories was by no means universal .
Lewisham West and Penge , for example , swung 22 points to Labour over nine years while Mansfield swung 23 points to the Tories .
The table below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one way or the other , along with the 2011 non-WB levels and the subsequent non-WB increases .
The findings reveal that seats swinging Tory by 15 % points or more were less than half as diverse as the national average at the start of the period .
But the pace of change was actually faster than average in subsequent years .
Places where Labour experienced swings above 15 % had the opposite dynamic .
They were two and a half times as diverse as the average seat , but were changing more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below shows the 2011 level of the non-WB population in each seat on the horizontal axis and the 2011-19 change in that population on the vertical axis .
The bigger the dot , the bigger the swing .
We can see that almost every seat which was diverse in the first place swung to Labour during the 2010s .
But we can also see that the places that have swung most dramatically to Labour are those where subsequent change is stable or where the non-WB population is falling .
The Cities of London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Tory stronghold – saw a nine point swing to Labour .
This happened alongside a fall of 4.5 points in the size of the non-WB population ( from 52.4 % to 47.9 % ) – at a point when Britain as a whole got more diverse .
For other examples see Streatham , Bristol West or Kensington – all of them diverse to start with , all becoming less so .
In seats where the non-WB population is rising from a low base , meanwhile , the opposite was the case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ population has increased by over a third since 2011 , 44 have swung to the Tories .
Barnsley is a good example here .
Historically it is solidly Labour .
But it has seen a six per cent cumulative swing to the Conservatives since 2019 , during a period when the non-WB population rose from six per cent to 8.5 % .
Even more pronounced case studies would be Thurrock , Walsall North or Corby .
What does all this tell us ?
Migration at the local level is a small factor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can not ignore that the 2010s were a period during which the Tories ' rhetoric became more eurosceptic and anti-migration , and where Labour 's became more cosmopolitan and socially liberal .
Neither can we ignore that other factors , such as the expense of inner-city housing , led to migration increasingly happening in parts of the UK where it had not occurred before .
This arguably fed into deeper values divides .
Places with less experience of change – and those that were potentially less relaxed about difference as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ultimately , most of the inner-city areas that have swung Labour since 2010 are now characterised by gentrification and a more positive attitude to migration .
Non-WB increase happened many years before , and in recent times the resulting diversity acted as a draw rather than a deterrent for liberal graduates – many of them from top-tier big-city universities which remain disproportionately white .
In the areas where the Tories have advanced most dramatically , by contrast , there is little cultural history of diversity , with changes being new and conspicuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage of the journey in terms of attitudes to race and multiculturalism .
Perhaps what these changes really show is that we need a less static political understanding of which areas are diverse and which are not , and a more comprehensive and detailed theory-of-change about migration and how you manage it .
Richard Webber is joint managing director of Webber Phillips Ltd , a visiting professor at the University of Newcastle and the originator of the Mosaic postcode classification system which the Conservatives and Labour have used for targeting electors during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also joint managing director of Webber Phillips .
He is a businessman , a Times columnist and a senior fellow at Policy Exchange .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Richard Webber and Trevor Phillips
How much do changes in migration at the local level alter the politics of immigration? The conventional wisdom is that they do not change a great deal. It's said that deprivation, education, cultural values and news intake all play a much bigger role.
To take one truism, for example, many of the places most supportive of Brexit were among the least diverse. To the extent that the 2016 EU referendum was a proxy for attitudes to immigration, those areas most hostile to freedom of movement were not the ones experiencing it first-hand – certainly compared to their Remain-voting counterparts in super-diverse cities.
But what if this analysis only looks at part of the picture? Academic studies have found that it is not the level of immigration that alters attitudes, but rather the pace of change. They point out that already-diverse places are often positive about migration, whereas places becoming more diverse tend to be negative.
Our new analysis, on the other hand, suggests a counterintuitive story. Over the last decade, as constituencies have become more diverse, they have switched to Tory blue, at least when this change is a new phenomenon. Meanwhile, those seats that are diverse but are getting demographically whiter have turned a deeper hue of Labour red.
Our study, Red Walls falling and the parallels with migration and gentrification, looks at this question over the course of the 2010s – a decade which saw four general elections. To do this we use Origins, a name recognition tool presenting a live picture of the ethno-cultural makeup of each community.
The report charts changes in the size of the non-white British (non-WB) population, in each seat across England and Wales. It then looks for parallels between these and the cumulative Labour-Tory swings during the same period.
This was a decade in which, on the surface of it, the Conservatives had the upper hand. But there were big shifts beneath the surface and the swing to the Tories was by no means universal. Lewisham West and Penge, for example, swung 22 points to Labour over nine years while Mansfield swung 23 points to the Tories.
The table below shows seats which had the biggest swings one way or the other, along with the 2011 non-WB levels and the subsequent non-WB increases.
The findings reveal that seats swinging Tory by 15% points or more were less than half as diverse as the national average at the start of the period. But the pace of change was actually faster than average in subsequent years.
Places where Labour experienced swings above 15% had the opposite dynamic. They were two and a half times as diverse as the average seat, but were changing more slowly than average.
The scatter chart below shows the 2011 level of the non-WB population in each seat on the horizontal axis and the 2011-19 change in that population on the vertical axis. The bigger the dot, the bigger the swing.
We can see that almost every seat which was diverse in the first place swung to Labour during the 2010s. But we can also see that the places that have swung most dramatically to Labour are those where subsequent change is stable or where the non-WB population is falling.
The Cities of London and Westminster, for instance – traditionally a Tory stronghold – saw a nine point swing to Labour. This happened alongside a fall of 4.5 points in the size of the non-WB population (from 52.4% to 47.9%) – at a point when Britain as a whole got more diverse. For other examples see Streatham, Bristol West or Kensington – all of them diverse to start with, all becoming less so.
In seats where the non-WB population is rising from a low base, meanwhile, the opposite was the case. Of the 49 constituencies where the non-WB population has increased by over a third since 2011, 44 have swung to the Tories.
Barnsley is a good example here. Historically it is solidly Labour. But it has seen a six per cent cumulative swing to the Conservatives since 2019, during a period when the non-WB population rose from six per cent to 8.5%. Even more pronounced case studies would be Thurrock, Walsall North or Corby.
What does all this tell us? Migration at the local level is a small factor in voting patterns, after all. But we cannot ignore that the 2010s were a period during which the Tories' rhetoric became more eurosceptic and anti-migration, and where Labour's became more cosmopolitan and socially liberal.
Neither can we ignore that other factors, such as the expense of inner-city housing, led to migration increasingly happening in parts of the UK where it had not occurred before. This arguably fed into deeper values divides. Places with less experience of change – and those that were potentially less relaxed about difference as a result – saw among the biggest non-WB increases.
Ultimately, most of the inner-city areas that have swung Labour since 2010 are now characterised by gentrification and a more positive attitude to migration. Non-WB increase happened many years before, and in recent times the resulting diversity acted as a draw rather than a deterrent for liberal graduates – many of them from top-tier big-city universities which remain disproportionately white.
In the areas where the Tories have advanced most dramatically, by contrast, there is little cultural history of diversity, with changes being new and conspicuous. These seats are at a different stage of the journey in terms of attitudes to race and multiculturalism.
Perhaps what these changes really show is that we need a less static political understanding of which areas are diverse and which are not, and a more comprehensive and detailed theory-of-change about migration and how you manage it.
Richard Webber is joint managing director of Webber Phillips Ltd, a visiting professor at the University of Newcastle and the originator of the Mosaic postcode classification system which the Conservatives and Labour have used for targeting electors during the past 20 years. Trevor Phillips is also joint managing director of Webber Phillips. He is a businessman, a Times columnist and a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-26--Deportation threat against woman facing forced marriage and FGM

`` Forced marriage is something that can destroy you , '' Fatou explains .
`` You ca n't have the peace that you want .
You do n't have a life . ''
Fatou came to the UK to study from the Gambia .
She was looking forward to graduating and starting her working life , when her dreams fell apart .
Six years ago , her father demanded she return to Gambia and marry a man much older than herself .
Before the marriage took place , she would have to undergo female genital mutilation ( FGM ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional household , '' Fatou explains .
She is currently living with a British family via a charity that supports people seeking asylum .
`` My father wanted me to be educated because education would increase my value to a husband .
It was normal at home .
But living in the UK , I realised my father does not have the right to force me to marry . ''
Fatou claimed asylum .
She explained to the Home Office that she faced forced marriage if she returned to her home country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her asylum claim , however , was refused .
Fatou was now homeless , destitute and facing deportation .
People refused asylum are not entitled to any state support and they are not allowed to work .
She appealed the decision , but was once again refused .
`` In my appeal hearing , the woman from the Home Office said the reason I do n't want to go back is because I am used to the lifestyle here , '' Fatou says .
The emotion in her voice is palpable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really disappointed for her to say that because she never knew what kind of life I had back home .
And here I do n't have a life . ''
Fatou is now raising money to appeal her case via a judicial review .
She believes her claim was refused for three reasons .
The first is that during her initial interview with the Home Office , she did n't mention her mother had undergone FGM .
In fact , they did n't ask her this question .
She assumed the Home Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women of her mother 's generation would have had FGM .
Instead , the Home Office decided Fatou was not at risk .
`` When women claim asylum they are treated with suspicion , '' human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman explains .
`` In that first interview with Home Office officials , in clinical environments with people who may lack a cultural understanding or understanding of gender-based violence , women are expected to relive their trauma and tell their entire story .
And if they do n't tell the story in the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often seen as liars . ''
Secondly , Fatou alleges the Home Office refused her claim because they did not believe the man she would be forced to marry would want a long engagement .
Essentially , they felt he would n't bother to wait .
`` But he already has other wives , '' Fatou says .
`` So he is n't waiting to get married . ''
Jeannie , who Fatou lives with , believes the Home Office have a Western view of marriage that ignores the cultural differences between traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` This man , he already has wives , '' Jeannie explains .
`` Fatou 's father has multiple wives , her grandfather too .
This man is not waiting for her .
It 's a completely British Christian cultural assumption that he 's waiting based on monogamy in marriage being the norm and law . ''
Fatou says that the Home Office never asked if the man was already married .
`` They did n't ask me any of that .
He is much older , I do n't know him , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life with him . ''
Finally , Fatou believes the Home Office refused her on the grounds that FGM is rare in adults – essentially that it happens to girls , not women .
But the man she would be forced to marry is insisting the marriage involves the procedure .
`` Back home it 's not rare at all , '' she says .
`` They say it 's illegal there now , but it is still happening . ''
The allegations Fatou makes are troubling and raise questions about the asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , this is not the first time they have emerged .
In their submission to the home affairs select committee inquiry into FGM , the groups Rights of Women and Asylum Aid said : `` Decisions about claims raising FGM often have incomplete or inadequate information about FGM in the country of origin and the reality of women 's experiences there . ''
This is part of a broader series of concerns about the Home Office 's treatment of women at risk of FGM .
`` There are various barriers faced by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence , '' explains Proudman .
`` One thing which should be highlighted is medical examinations of women and girls claiming asylum on FGM , either to prove they have n't been cut or to prove they have been .
That in itself can be quite invasive and re-traumatising . ''
She 's seen cases where women have been advised that they need to undergo a medical examination to prove their asylum claim .
`` Then there 's lack of legal aid and no-recourse-to-public-funds leaving very vulnerable women destitute .
There can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and judges on issues around FGM . ''
In the past decade , Conservative-led governments have been very vocal about their determination to tackle FGM and forced marriage .
They have taken laudable steps to protect women and girls from these forms of gender-based violence .
But the treatment of those facing deportation to countries where they are at risk of FGM exposes a gaping flaw at the heart of the policy .
`` It 's hypocritical of the government to say they are doing everything they can to end FGM when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims , '' Proudman continues .
`` They 've spent millions of pounds to end FGM abroad .
But if you look at some of the refusal letters from the Home Office , they will say the government has funded an NGO or safe house in the home country so they can safely be returned .
Again , this ignores the systemic and pervasive nature of gender-based violence . ''
Today , Fatou continues to live in limbo .
The uncertainty of the past six years has had a terrible impact on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's really been stressful , '' she explains .
`` A few days ago I woke up feeling angry and I do n't know why .
I wake up in the night wondering if they will come and pick me up .
I 've isolated myself .
I feel like my life is all wasted .
The past years have just been wasted with me not being able to do anything .
I just hope people can understand what we go through . ''
A Home Office spokesperson said : `` The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so called 'honour-based ' abuse .
We have significantly strengthened the law on FGM and forced marriage and continue to train staff on how to identify those at risk and fund charities to support victims – last year our joint Forced Marriage Unit provided assistance in 1,355 cases of actual or potential forced marriage .
The home secretary has spoken about how our asylum system is broken .
The government is fixing it to make it firm and fair , ensuring it is more compassionate to those who need our help . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ activist .
She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women 's Literature Festival .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Sian Norris
"Forced marriage is something that can destroy you," Fatou explains. "You can't have the peace that you want. You don't have a life."
Fatou came to the UK to study from the Gambia. She was looking forward to graduating and starting her working life, when her dreams fell apart. Six years ago, her father demanded she return to Gambia and marry a man much older than herself. Before the marriage took place, she would have to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM).
"I grew up in a very traditional household," Fatou explains. She is currently living with a British family via a charity that supports people seeking asylum. "My father wanted me to be educated because education would increase my value to a husband. It was normal at home. But living in the UK, I realised my father does not have the right to force me to marry."
Fatou claimed asylum. She explained to the Home Office that she faced forced marriage if she returned to her home country and later told them she also faced FGM. Her asylum claim, however, was refused. Fatou was now homeless, destitute and facing deportation. People refused asylum are not entitled to any state support and they are not allowed to work. She appealed the decision, but was once again refused.
"In my appeal hearing, the woman from the Home Office said the reason I don't want to go back is because I am used to the lifestyle here," Fatou says. The emotion in her voice is palpable, even over Zoom. "I was really disappointed for her to say that because she never knew what kind of life I had back home. And here I don't have a life."
Fatou is now raising money to appeal her case via a judicial review. She believes her claim was refused for three reasons. The first is that during her initial interview with the Home Office, she didn't mention her mother had undergone FGM. In fact, they didn't ask her this question. She assumed the Home Office would understand that in Gambia almost all women of her mother's generation would have had FGM. Instead, the Home Office decided Fatou was not at risk.
"When women claim asylum they are treated with suspicion," human rights barrister Charlotte Proudman explains. "In that first interview with Home Office officials, in clinical environments with people who may lack a cultural understanding or understanding of gender-based violence, women are expected to relive their trauma and tell their entire story. And if they don't tell the story in the way they are expected to, they are often seen as liars."
Secondly, Fatou alleges the Home Office refused her claim because they did not believe the man she would be forced to marry would want a long engagement. Essentially, they felt he wouldn't bother to wait. "But he already has other wives," Fatou says. "So he isn't waiting to get married."
Jeannie, who Fatou lives with, believes the Home Office have a Western view of marriage that ignores the cultural differences between traditional Muslim families in Gambia and here.
"This man, he already has wives," Jeannie explains. "Fatou's father has multiple wives, her grandfather too. This man is not waiting for her. It's a completely British Christian cultural assumption that he's waiting based on monogamy in marriage being the norm and law."
Fatou says that the Home Office never asked if the man was already married. "They didn't ask me any of that. He is much older, I don't know him, I don't want to spend my life with him."
Finally, Fatou believes the Home Office refused her on the grounds that FGM is rare in adults – essentially that it happens to girls, not women. But the man she would be forced to marry is insisting the marriage involves the procedure.
"Back home it's not rare at all," she says. "They say it's illegal there now, but it is still happening."
The allegations Fatou makes are troubling and raise questions about the asylum system's understanding of gender-based violence. Unfortunately, this is not the first time they have emerged. In their submission to the home affairs select committee inquiry into FGM, the groups Rights of Women and Asylum Aid said: "Decisions about claims raising FGM often have incomplete or inadequate information about FGM in the country of origin and the reality of women's experiences there."
This is part of a broader series of concerns about the Home Office's treatment of women at risk of FGM. "There are various barriers faced by women claiming asylum for FGM or gender-based violence," explains Proudman. "One thing which should be highlighted is medical examinations of women and girls claiming asylum on FGM, either to prove they haven't been cut or to prove they have been. That in itself can be quite invasive and re-traumatising."
She's seen cases where women have been advised that they need to undergo a medical examination to prove their asylum claim. "Then there's lack of legal aid and no-recourse-to-public-funds leaving very vulnerable women destitute. There can also be a lack of training for officials and judges on issues around FGM."
In the past decade, Conservative-led governments have been very vocal about their determination to tackle FGM and forced marriage. They have taken laudable steps to protect women and girls from these forms of gender-based violence. But the treatment of those facing deportation to countries where they are at risk of FGM exposes a gaping flaw at the heart of the policy.
"It's hypocritical of the government to say they are doing everything they can to end FGM when they are refusing women and girls' asylum claims," Proudman continues. "They've spent millions of pounds to end FGM abroad. But if you look at some of the refusal letters from the Home Office, they will say the government has funded an NGO or safe house in the home country so they can safely be returned. Again, this ignores the systemic and pervasive nature of gender-based violence."
Today, Fatou continues to live in limbo. The uncertainty of the past six years has had a terrible impact on her mental health and wellbeing.
"It's really been stressful," she explains. "A few days ago I woke up feeling angry and I don't know why. I wake up in the night wondering if they will come and pick me up. I've isolated myself. I feel like my life is all wasted. The past years have just been wasted with me not being able to do anything. I just hope people can understand what we go through."
A government spokesperson said: "The government is committed to eradicating all forms of so called 'honour-based' abuse. We have significantly strengthened the law on FGM and forced marriage and continue to train staff on how to identify those at risk and fund charities to support victims – last year our joint Forced Marriage Unit provided assistance in 1,355 cases of actual or potential forced marriage.
"The home secretary has spoken about how our asylum system is broken. The government is fixing it to make it firm and fair, ensuring it is more compassionate to those who need our help. Published country information covers specific issues relating to gender-based harm including female genital mutilation (FGM), sexual exploitation, violence in conflict and domestic violence. All decision-makers receive extensive training and must follow published Home Office policy guidance, including on specific forms of gender-based persecution."
Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist. She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-11-27--Week in Review: Infantilising the covid debate

One of the most frustrating things about covid is how often it forces you to return to first principles .
This is a virus .
It spreads by close contact between people , especially inside .
People are afraid of getting this virus , so many of them will stay at home regardless of whether there are government restrictions in place .
This is n't complicated .
It is very basic indeed .
And yet it still seems beyond the comprehension of many of the people who regularly debate the issue .
On Newsnight yesterday evening , former Pizza Express @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new restrictions coming into force after lockdown .
`` Pubs did n't even shut during the Blitz in the second world war , '' he insisted .
Meanwhile , debate raged in the newspapers this morning on whether to hug your grandmother at Christmas .
Apparently , this needs saying .
It is remarkable that it should be necessary , but evidently it is .
The difference between the Blitz and a pandemic is that the Blitz was not spread by contact with other people .
Whether you were in a pub or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difference .
Whether you are in a pub or your home during covid can potentially make a very great difference .
It is not a good idea to hug your grandmother at Christmas .
The virus spreads by close contact .
The elderly are more at risk from it .
So the trouble with hugging your grandmother is that , if you have covid , you may kill her .
In the background of these infantile arguments is the perennial covid myth : that there is a binary opposition between health and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures in politics and journalism have insisted on maintaining the idea that there is a zero-sum relationship between these two priorities - that what you take from one you give to the other .
`` The Labour party have been calling for stronger , harder , deeper lockdowns since the beginning of this thing , '' Claire Fox , an ally of Nigel Farage , said on Question Time last night .
`` They want to close the economy down and then seem to be shocked that there 's an economic crisis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis of data for 45 countries by Michael Smithson compared covid deaths per million of population with economic indicators .
It found no evidence of a positive relationship between covid deaths and either imports or exports .
There was a negative correlation between covid deaths and GDP and between covid deaths and private consumption expenditure .
In other words : those countries which succeeded , even temporarily , in suppressing the virus were typically better off economically than those which did not .
It is not just lockdown which is responsible for our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
Containing it saves both lives and the economy .
Elements of the pandemic are powerfully counter-intuitive .
We associate the sight of loved ones with all the things that are best in our lives .
We think of an embrace as the most natural thing on earth .
It 's hard to keep reminding yourself that it is by being close to those you love that you can put them at risk .
But many of the people agitating against restrictions are not struggling with this natural intuitive disconnect .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ - with the world of empirical data , trade-offs and least-bad options .
Sometimes it is because they simply can not bring their mind into contact with it .
Sometimes it is because the mental models they use to think - typically of warfare , and bravado , and national virility - are completely unhelpful when it comes to a pandemic .
And sometimes , it is because they see an opening - a group of potential anti-lockdown voters - and cynically attempt to exploit them .
This , of course , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new political party .
But regardless of the cause , this is a dangerous moment to fly off into the never-never land of easy emotional answers .
The news on a vaccine is encouraging .
It may well be available very soon .
And one of the chief issues which political debate must now deal with is how to counter the growing anti-vaccination movement online .
There is a significant moral and intellectual difference between the kind of simple-minded positions outlined here and anti-vaccine propaganda .
But this radicalised form of anti-science thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mainstream debate which refuses to engage on the basis of evidence and instead fights its battles on the grounds of emotion and false binaries .
If it continues to flourish , if anti-vaccine sentiment truly takes hold , this virus will be with us much longer than it has to be .
The damage it inflicts on us - on our health , our lives and the economy - will persist longer than they need do .
The first step towards countering it is to be vigilant about the empirical basis of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out now .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

One of the most frustrating things about covid is how often it forces you to return to first principles.
This is a virus. It spreads by close contact between people, especially inside. People are afraid of getting this virus, so many of them will stay at home regardless of whether there are government restrictions in place.
This isn't complicated. It is very basic indeed. And yet it still seems beyond the comprehension of many of the people who regularly debate the issue.
On Newsnight yesterday evening, former Pizza Express chair Luke Johnson was railing against the new restrictions coming into force after lockdown. "Pubs didn't even shut during the Blitz in the second world war," he insisted. Meanwhile, debate raged in the newspapers this morning on whether to hug your grandmother at Christmas.
Apparently, this needs saying. It is remarkable that it should be necessary, but evidently it is. The difference between the Blitz and a pandemic is that the Blitz was not spread by contact with other people. Whether you were in a pub or your home during the Blitz made little difference. Whether you are in a pub or your home during covid can potentially make a very great difference.
It is not a good idea to hug your grandmother at Christmas. The virus spreads by close contact. The elderly are more at risk from it. So the trouble with hugging your grandmother is that, if you have covid, you may kill her.
In the background of these infantile arguments is the perennial covid myth: that there is a binary opposition between health and the economy.
Throughout the pandemic, leading figures in politics and journalism have insisted on maintaining the idea that there is a zero-sum relationship between these two priorities – that what you take from one you give to the other. "The Labour party have been calling for stronger, harder, deeper lockdowns since the beginning of this thing," Claire Fox, an ally of Nigel Farage, said on Question Time last night. "They want to close the economy down and then seem to be shocked that there's an economic crisis."
This is false. A recent analysis of data for 45 countries by Michael Smithson compared covid deaths per million of population with economic indicators. It found no evidence of a positive relationship between covid deaths and either imports or exports. There was a negative correlation between covid deaths and GDP and between covid deaths and private consumption expenditure. In other words: those countries which succeeded, even temporarily, in suppressing the virus were typically better off economically than those which did not.
It is not just lockdown which is responsible for our economic problems. It is the virus itself. Containing it saves both lives and the economy.
Elements of the pandemic are powerfully counter-intuitive. We associate the sight of loved ones with all the things that are best in our lives. We think of an embrace as the most natural thing on earth. It's hard to keep reminding yourself that it is by being close to those you love that you can put them at risk.
But many of the people agitating against restrictions are not struggling with this natural intuitive disconnect. They are simply refusing to engage with reality – with the world of empirical data, trade-offs and least-bad options. Sometimes it is because they simply cannot bring their mind into contact with it. Sometimes it is because the mental models they use to think – typically of warfare, and bravado, and national virility – are completely unhelpful when it comes to a pandemic. And sometimes, it is because they see an opening – a group of potential anti-lockdown voters – and cynically attempt to exploit them. This, of course, is Farage's reasoning as he establishes his new political party.
But regardless of the cause, this is a dangerous moment to fly off into the never-never land of easy emotional answers. The news on a vaccine is encouraging. It may well be available very soon. And one of the chief issues which political debate must now deal with is how to counter the growing anti-vaccination movement online.
There is a significant moral and intellectual difference between the kind of simple-minded positions outlined here and anti-vaccine propaganda. But this radicalised form of anti-science thinking is given rich soil to grow by a mainstream debate which refuses to engage on the basis of evidence and instead fights its battles on the grounds of emotion and false binaries.
If it continues to flourish, if anti-vaccine sentiment truly takes hold, this virus will be with us much longer than it has to be. The damage it inflicts on us – on our health, our lives and the economy – will persist longer than they need do. The first step towards countering it is to be vigilant about the empirical basis of the mainstream debate.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out now.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-12-02--Systemic racism in the asylum housing system

If you listen to Home Office ministers you could be forgiven for thinking that the only issues in asylum worth addressing are people crossing the Channel in boats .
You 'd be very wrong , as they are .
Last week a highly respected and influential group of MPs shone a light on an issue where urgent action is badly needed : the asylum accommodation crisis .
Ministerial decisions and chronic failures in policy implementation are doing serious harm to people in the asylum system .
Covid has greatly exacerbated these risks , and the consequences for the health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Friday the House of Commons public accounts committee released the findings of its investigation into the 2019 changeover of asylum accommodation contracts to three new private providers : Serco , Mears and Clearsprings .
Also in its crosshairs was the new advice , issue reporting and eligibility service .
Its main feature is a helpline for people seeking asylum , a single point of contact through which they could ask advice and report disrepair in their homes .
The MPs pulled no punches in their assessment .
These contracts were `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a `` significant impact on the lives of asylum seekers '' which was `` hugely exacerbated by the pandemic crisis '' .
None of this was new to us at Refugee Action .
Even before Covid , we were seeing unacceptable problems in asylum support : increasing delays for financial assistance , impossibly long wait times for the helpline and the creeping use of hotels .
All these were causing or aggravating poverty , isolation , and mental health problems .
In fact , the sheer number of faults in the system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus shook the country .
Where we find ourselves now should concern us all .
People and families in the asylum system are being forced to live in dangerously dilapidated houses , or stay for months - in some cases more than a year - in hotels totally inappropriate for long-term stays .
Alternately , we see the latest manifestation of the Home Office 's assault on the dignity of people in the asylum system - dumping into disused army barracks .
The results in terms of people 's health , wellbeing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look no further than the brewing crisis in dispersal housing , where most people seeking asylum live .
These properties have been in disrepair for years and have been getting progressively worse .
When the new contracts rolled out , people were unable to report disrepair due to the helpline being overwhelmed .
Then , as soon as covid hit , providers paused non-urgent repairs .
As a result , the housing stock deteriorated further , leaving many properties simply uninhabitable .
One mother we support watched helplessly as the ceiling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toddler , splitting her head open .
The young girl was hospitalised and needed 20 stitches to fix the wound .
A video sent by another mother to our services team showed water pouring into her home from the flat above and onto the bed where her young son was sleeping .
There was nothing that could be done , she was told , because the fault was with the property above hers .
MPs focused on the exponential rise in the use of hotels for accommodation .
Despite a big decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK to seek asylum since the start of the pandemic , the use of hotels has gone up ten-fold .
Far from the four-star treatment some critics claim people are receiving , the reality is appalling .
The hotel experience – overcrowding , poor food , inability to isolate or distance , shared rooms , controlled movements , no money , far-right attacks and limited access to health and legal advice – takes a terrible toll on the mental health of the people we support .
What compounds the horror is not knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office expects providers to move people on from hotels within 35 days .
Some of our clients have been holed up in hotels for almost a year , with no cash support of any kind .
The latest manifestation of this is possibly the most concerning : the rounding up and quasi-incarceration of people into disused army barracks , leading to angry protests by people seeking asylum at the conditions inside the buildings .
Many organisations supporting those inside the barracks say most people experience social isolation , with a lack of access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a lack of adequate food and other support .
Almost three in five report security concerns , including vulnerability to hate crime .
Again , the consequence of awful conditions on minds already under pressure can be horrific .
On Thursday night last week , the evening before the MPs ' report was released , a young man tried to take his own life at Napier Barracks in Kent .
Thanks to swift intervention , his life was saved .
It 's impossible to avoid the conclusion that systemic racism shapes asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying disproportionately of coronavirus , people seeking asylum – overwhelmingly people of colour – are put in overcrowded and unhygienic accommodation .
When hotels and barracks become targets for the far right , residents are punished by curbs on their freedom .
These problems are not isolated .
They are not just anecdotes - a few bad examples in an otherwise well-functioning system .
These are serious and systemic problems .
Ministers must open up and listen to the evidence of organisations working directly with people in the asylum system .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rights of people in the asylum system , they must get a grip on these failures and put in place effective , humane and compassionate solutions for people seeking asylum .
For all our sakes .
The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Stephen Hale
If you listen to Home Office ministers you could be forgiven for thinking that the only issues in asylum worth addressing are people crossing the Channel in boats. You’d be very wrong, as they are.
Last week a highly respected and influential group of MPs shone a light on an issue where urgent action is badly needed: the asylum accommodation crisis. Ministerial decisions and chronic failures in policy implementation are doing serious harm to people in the asylum system. Covid has greatly exacerbated these risks, and the consequences for the health and wellbeing of people affected by these failures.
On Friday the House of Commons public accounts committee released the findings of its investigation into the 2019 changeover of asylum accommodation contracts to three new private providers: Serco, Mears and Clearsprings.
Also in its crosshairs was the new advice, issue reporting and eligibility service. Its main feature is a helpline for people seeking asylum, a single point of contact through which they could ask advice and report disrepair in their homes.
The MPs pulled no punches in their assessment. These contracts were “set up to fail”. They had a “significant impact on the lives of asylum seekers” which was “hugely exacerbated by the pandemic crisis”.
None of this was new to us at Refugee Action. Even before Covid, we were seeing unacceptable problems in asylum support: increasing delays for financial assistance, impossibly long wait times for the helpline and the creeping use of hotels. All these were causing or aggravating poverty, isolation, and mental health problems. In fact, the sheer number of faults in the system meant it quickly began to topple when coronavirus shook the country.
Where we find ourselves now should concern us all. People and families in the asylum system are being forced to live in dangerously dilapidated houses, or stay for months – in some cases more than a year – in hotels totally inappropriate for long-term stays. Alternately, we see the latest manifestation of the Home Office’s assault on the dignity of people in the asylum system – dumping into disused army barracks. The results in terms of people’s health, wellbeing and safety have been catastrophic.
You need to look no further than the brewing crisis in dispersal housing, where most people seeking asylum live. These properties have been in disrepair for years and have been getting progressively worse. When the new contracts rolled out, people were unable to report disrepair due to the helpline being overwhelmed. Then, as soon as covid hit, providers paused non-urgent repairs. As a result, the housing stock deteriorated further, leaving many properties simply uninhabitable.
One mother we support watched helplessly as the ceiling in her asylum house collapsed on her two-year-old toddler, splitting her head open. The young girl was hospitalised and needed 20 stitches to fix the wound.
A video sent by another mother to our services team showed water pouring into her home from the flat above and onto the bed where her young son was sleeping. There was nothing that could be done, she was told, because the fault was with the property above hers.
MPs focused on the exponential rise in the use of hotels for accommodation. Despite a big decline in the number of people coming to the UK to seek asylum since the start of the pandemic, the use of hotels has gone up ten-fold.
Far from the four-star treatment some critics claim people are receiving, the reality is appalling. The hotel experience – overcrowding, poor food, inability to isolate or distance, shared rooms, controlled movements, no money, far-right attacks and limited access to health and legal advice – takes a terrible toll on the mental health of the people we support.
What compounds the horror is not knowing when it will end. The Home Office expects providers to move people on from hotels within 35 days. Some of our clients have been holed up in hotels for almost a year, with no cash support of any kind.
The latest manifestation of this is possibly the most concerning: the rounding up and quasi-incarceration of people into disused army barracks, leading to angry protests by people seeking asylum at the conditions inside the buildings.
Many organisations supporting those inside the barracks say most people experience social isolation, with a lack of access to mental health support, as well as a lack of adequate food and other support. Almost three in five report security concerns, including vulnerability to hate crime.
Again, the consequence of awful conditions on minds already under pressure can be horrific. On Thursday night last week, the evening before the MPs’ report was released, a young man tried to take his own life at Napier Barracks in Kent. Thanks to swift intervention, his life was saved.
It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that systemic racism shapes asylum policy. When people of colour are dying disproportionately of coronavirus, people seeking asylum – overwhelmingly people of colour – are put in overcrowded and unhygienic accommodation. When hotels and barracks become targets for the far right, residents are punished by curbs on their freedom.
These problems are not isolated. They are not just anecdotes – a few bad examples in an otherwise well-functioning system. These are serious and systemic problems. Ministers must open up and listen to the evidence of organisations working directly with people in the asylum system.
Instead of denying this evidence and seeking to curtail the rights of people in the asylum system, they must get a grip on these failures and put in place effective, humane and compassionate solutions for people seeking asylum. For all our sakes.
Stephen Hale is chief executive of Refugee Action.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-12-03--Covid crisis demands ‘safety-net for all’

By David Simmonds MP , Neil Coyle MP , Tim Farron MP and Bishop of Durham Rt Revd Paul Butler When the first lockdown began in March , many vulnerable people benefitted from emergency measures delivered at speed .
‘ Everyone In ’ ensured that thousands of rough sleepers were taken off the streets and moved into temporary accommodation .
Allowing people granted refugee status to remain in their asylum accommodation , rather than being moved on after the usual 28-day period , meant they were not forced into destitution without work or a new home .
In the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was required .
There has been considerable debate in recent months about the support in place for people without any access to the safety net .
Those with No Recourse to Public Funds ( NRPF ) , an estimated 1.4 million people with temporary permission to be in the UK , have found themselves relying solely on the catch-all support offered through the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme .
This number includes almost all migrants granted leave to remain , including people who come on work visas and relatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research at the beginning of lockdown revealed the extent to which migrants were particularly affected by the health and economic consequences of the pandemic .
It should be no surprise , therefore , that the number of people applying to have their NRPF status lifted increased from 843 in the first quarter of 2020 to 5,665 in the second quarter .
Such applications can only be made where there is evidence of destitution or an imminent risk of destitution , and people on the five-year route to settlement who apply for a ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ten-year route if successful .
The Home Office deserves credit for lifting NRPF restrictions in almost all cases , accepting 89 per cent of change of conditions applications .
However , the average 30-day wait for a decision is likely to be too long for many people , especially since they will then face a five-week wait for their first Universal Credit payment .
Processing these applications more quickly , so that people receive support in a matter of days rather than weeks , is essential at a time of national emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been particularly apparent during the pandemic but have existed for some time .
Under a policy enacted by successive governments , a cohort of people with NRPF are told they do not have a right to claim public funds .
Yet this clashes with the legal duty of local councils to provide accommodation and financial support to destitute families with children under the age of 18 , adults with care and support needs , and young people leaving care , regardless of their immigration status .
The money may not be coming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still a burden on the taxpayer if local councils are footing the bill .
This provision offered by local authorities essentially acts as an alternative and underfunded welfare system for a significant number of migrants .
Data from 2018/19 showed that 59 councils were spending £47.5 million a year on NRPF service provision , demonstrating that the cost shunting from central government to local government was a significant burden on local councils even before the pandemic .
The Local Government Association called for the suspension of NRPF during the pandemic so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their immigration status , into accommodation beyond lockdown .
Whilst the NRPF condition remains in place , local authorities have lacked clarity about their responsibilities to those who are homeless and destitute because of their migration status .
Meanwhile , charitable organisations are increasingly stretched .
Southwark Day Centre for Asylum Seekers caters for 250 people a week , the majority of whom are families with NRPF .
As this number continues to rise , organisations providing support are struggling to deal with the increase in demand .
The idea behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have access to public funds before they have been here and contributing for some time – does not stand up to scrutiny during a national crisis .
The threat of destitution is apparent by the number of people applying successfully to have their NRPF condition lifted .
The burden on local authorities is even greater at a time when many charitable organisations have been unable to offer their usual provision .
NRPF causes considerable problems at the best of times .
In the midst of a pandemic , a default position of leaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net designed to prevent destitution has significant moral and practical implications .
David Simmonds MP , Neil Coyle MP , Tim Farron MP and Bishop of Durham Rt Revd Paul Butler are all principals of the cross-party Refugee , Asylum and Migration Policy Project ( Ramp ) The opinions in politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By David Simmonds MP, Neil Coyle MP, Tim Farron MP and Bishop of Durham Rt Revd Paul Butler
When the first lockdown began in March, many vulnerable people benefitted from emergency measures delivered at speed. ‘Everyone In’ ensured that thousands of rough sleepers were taken off the streets and moved into temporary accommodation. Allowing people granted refugee status to remain in their asylum accommodation, rather than being moved on after the usual 28-day period, meant they were not forced into destitution without work or a new home. In the face of an unprecedented crisis, unprecedented action was required.
There has been considerable debate in recent months about the support in place for people without any access to the safety net. Those with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF), an estimated 1.4 million people with temporary permission to be in the UK, have found themselves relying solely on the catch-all support offered through the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme. This number includes almost all migrants granted leave to remain, including people who come on work visas and relatives of British citizens.
IPPR’s research at the beginning of lockdown revealed the extent to which migrants were particularly affected by the health and economic consequences of the pandemic. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the number of people applying to have their NRPF status lifted increased from 843 in the first quarter of 2020 to 5,665 in the second quarter. Such applications can only be made where there is evidence of destitution or an imminent risk of destitution, and people on the five-year route to settlement who apply for a ‘change in conditions’ are moved onto the ten-year route if successful.
The Home Office deserves credit for lifting NRPF restrictions in almost all cases, accepting 89 per cent of change of conditions applications. However, the average 30-day wait for a decision is likely to be too long for many people, especially since they will then face a five-week wait for their first Universal Credit payment. Processing these applications more quickly, so that people receive support in a matter of days rather than weeks, is essential at a time of national emergency.
The problems caused by NRPF have been particularly apparent during the pandemic but have existed for some time. Under a policy enacted by successive governments, a cohort of people with NRPF are told they do not have a right to claim public funds.
Yet this clashes with the legal duty of local councils to provide accommodation and financial support to destitute families with children under the age of 18, adults with care and support needs, and young people leaving care, regardless of their immigration status. The money may not be coming out of central government funds, but it is still a burden on the taxpayer if local councils are footing the bill.
This provision offered by local authorities essentially acts as an alternative and underfunded welfare system for a significant number of migrants. Data from 2018/19 showed that 59 councils were spending £47.5 million a year on NRPF service provision, demonstrating that the cost shunting from central government to local government was a significant burden on local councils even before the pandemic. The Local Government Association called for the suspension of NRPF during the pandemic so that they could support rough sleepers, regardless of their immigration status, into accommodation beyond lockdown.
Whilst the NRPF condition remains in place, local authorities have lacked clarity about their responsibilities to those who are homeless and destitute because of their migration status. Meanwhile, charitable organisations are increasingly stretched. Southwark Day Centre for Asylum Seekers caters for 250 people a week, the majority of whom are families with NRPF. As this number continues to rise, organisations providing support are struggling to deal with the increase in demand.
The idea behind the NRPF condition – that people should not have access to public funds before they have been here and contributing for some time – does not stand up to scrutiny during a national crisis. The threat of destitution is apparent by the number of people applying successfully to have their NRPF condition lifted. The burden on local authorities is even greater at a time when many charitable organisations have been unable to offer their usual provision.
NRPF causes considerable problems at the best of times. In the midst of a pandemic, a default position of leaving people without access to the basic safety net designed to prevent destitution has significant moral and practical implications.
David Simmonds MP, Neil Coyle MP, Tim Farron MP and Bishop of Durham Rt Revd Paul Butler are all principals of the cross-party Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project (Ramp)
The opinions in politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.