Report on UK Migration Policy and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report analyzes the United Kingdom’s current approach to managing irregular migration, particularly asylum seekers arriving via small sea vessels. The analysis is framed within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting significant challenges in aligning national policy with international commitments. Key areas of concern involve SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Current government proposals and broader political discourse reveal a profound tension between national border control objectives and the principles of universal human rights that underpin the SDG framework.

Analysis of Current Migration and Asylum Policies

Institutional Frameworks and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The UK’s management of asylum claims presents a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and just institutions. The government has proposed replacing the existing court and tribunal system for asylum cases with a new body of “independent professional adjudicators.” This initiative, intended to accelerate the asylum process, raises questions regarding its adherence to SDG Target 16.3 (Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all).

• Proposed Institutional Reform: The creation of a new adjudication body is framed as a measure to increase efficiency. However, concerns exist that this could compromise the thoroughness of asylum claim assessments, potentially undermining justice for vulnerable individuals.
• Human Rights Conventions: A significant debate surrounds the UK’s adherence to international human rights laws, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Calls to withdraw from or selectively apply these conventions conflict with the global consensus on legal frameworks that protect individuals, a cornerstone of SDG 16.
• Public Trust and Governance: Polling data indicates widespread public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the issue, with 71% of voters believing the Prime Minister is managing the situation poorly. This reflects a challenge to SDG Target 16.7 (Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making).

Socio-Economic Impacts and SDGs 10 & 11 (Reduced Inequalities & Sustainable Communities)

The increasing number of irregular arrivals has significant socio-economic consequences, impacting the UK’s progress towards SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

1. Scale of Migration: The number of small boat landings increased by 38% in the last recorded year, contributing to an estimated 1.2 million undocumented migrants in the country. This trend runs counter to SDG Target 10.7, which aims to facilitate “orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration.”
2. Housing and Accommodation Crisis: Over 32,000 asylum seekers are housed in hotels. This ad-hoc solution fails to meet the objective of SDG Target 11.1 (Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing). Furthermore, it has led to legal challenges from local authorities and created social friction, undermining the goal of creating inclusive and safe communities.
3. Community Tensions: The use of hotels as asylum accommodation has become a flashpoint for local anger, indicating a failure to manage the integration of new arrivals in a way that promotes social cohesion, a key aspect of sustainable communities under SDG 11.

Proposed Policy Directions and SDG Alignment

Government Initiatives and Institutional Reform

Several policy initiatives have been proposed, yet their effectiveness and alignment with SDG principles are questionable.

• Bilateral Agreements: An agreement with France to return migrants has been criticized for its limited scope, with an estimated return of only 50 individuals per week, insufficient to address the scale of the challenge in line with SDG 10.7.
• Legal System Overhaul: The proposal to review Article 8 of the European human rights convention (the right to private and family life) represents a move to limit legal avenues for migrants to remain in the UK. This approach challenges the universal application of justice promoted by SDG 16.

The Debate on International Legal Frameworks

The core of the policy debate centers on the role of international law, revealing divergent paths for achieving migration management goals.

• Derogation from International Law: Proposals exist for the mass deportation of asylum seekers, which would necessitate scrapping human rights laws and derogating from international treaties. This approach is in direct opposition to the international legal order and the spirit of the SDGs, particularly SDG 16.
• Upholding Universal Principles: Conversely, maintaining adherence to human rights conventions is seen by others as a fundamental moral and legal obligation. This perspective aligns with the foundational principles of the SDG agenda, which is built on a platform of universal rights and shared responsibilities. The challenge lies in creating migration policies that are both humane and well-managed, fulfilling the vision of SDG 10.7.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article’s central theme is the “small boats crisis,” which involves the migration of people across borders. This directly connects to SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries, including provisions for managing migration. The discussion revolves around “illegal migrants,” “asylum seekers,” and the policies governing their entry and status, which are core components of international migration policy discussed under this goal.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article extensively discusses the legal and institutional frameworks for handling asylum cases. It mentions courts, tribunals, human rights laws, international conventions, and government bodies like the Home Office. The debate about the effectiveness of these institutions, the rule of law, and proposals to change them (e.g., creating a new body of adjudicators or scrapping human rights laws) directly relates to the goal of building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Target 10.7 (under SDG 10): “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.”
   • Explanation: The article describes a situation that is the antithesis of this target. The “small boats crisis,” the mention of “illegal migrants,” and the “unmanageable numbers” all point to a migration process that is not orderly, safe, or well-managed. The critique of government initiatives like the “one in, one out” agreement with France further highlights the challenges in implementing effective migration policies.
2. Target 16.3 (under SDG 16): “Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.”
   • Explanation: The article is deeply engaged with this target. It discusses how British courts observe “the provisions of human rights law and other relevant international conventions” in asylum cases. The debate about whether to “extricate itself from these conventions” or scrap human rights laws altogether is a direct conversation about the role and application of the rule of law at both national and international levels.
3. Target 16.6 (under SDG 16): “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.”
   • Explanation: The article questions the effectiveness of the current institutions responsible for managing asylum. The proposal to replace courts and tribunals with a new body is an attempt to create a more “effective” institution that can “speed up the asylum process.” Furthermore, the citation of a YouGov poll showing that “71 per cent of voters believe the prime minister is handling the asylum hotel issue badly” points to a perceived lack of accountability and effectiveness of the government’s institutions.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 10.7: The number and trend of irregular migrant arrivals.
  • Evidence from the article: The text explicitly states that “last year 38 per cent more small boats landed on UK shores than during the previous year.” This percentage increase is a direct indicator of the failure to manage migration flows effectively. The estimate of “up to 1.2 million illegal migrants in Britain” also serves as a baseline indicator for the scale of irregular migration.
• Indicator for Target 10.7: The number of asylum seekers requiring accommodation.
  • Evidence from the article: The article mentions that “More than 32,000 asylum seekers are currently accommodated in hotels.” This figure acts as an indicator of the pressure on the asylum system and the country’s infrastructure, reflecting the volume of arrivals.
• Indicator for Target 16.6: Public perception of institutional effectiveness.
  • Evidence from the article: The reference to the YouGov poll where “71 per cent of voters believe the prime minister is handling the asylum hotel issue badly” is a clear indicator of public confidence in the government’s ability to manage the situation, reflecting on the perceived accountability and effectiveness of its institutions.
• Indicator for Target 16.3: The effectiveness of the legal system in processing and enforcing immigration law.
  • Evidence from the article: The article implies a slow and ineffective system by mentioning the government’s proposal to “speed up the asylum process.” It also notes that illegal migrants “almost never be sent back,” which suggests a low rate of deportations, an indicator of the state’s ability to enforce its laws under the current legal framework.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thetimes.com