So people can't even get visas to access the scheme. This is why, rather than cobbling together a hodgepodge plan which puts refugees at yet more risk, the government needs to treat this as an asylum situation and activate protection measures. 1/ #r4today
Instead though they've continued to treat the Ukrainian war as an immigration situation which needs visas, as if people are choosing to come to UK for fun. Asylum and immigration systems are different and include different responses, that's why you can't use one for the other. 2/
Government needs to though, with its cack-handed attempt to privatise protection through #HomesForUkraine scheme. Treating Ukrainians as asylum seekers would show up what a dangerous, illegal, discriminatory and inhumane piece of legislation the #NationalityAndBordersBill is. 3/
Failing to treat Ukrainians as refugees doesn't just mean that it is harder to implement existing, legal, protection frameworks, it also demonstrates that rather than being "welcoming" the UK is prepared to go to extreme lengths to deny everyone asylum and long term safety. 4/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread: In theory, the new #HomesForUkraine scheme starts working today. As more information comes out the clearer it becomes how unsuitable and ill-prepared it is. Rather than alleviate concerns it has become nigh on inevitable that it will increase exploitation. 1/ #r4today
You can argue "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good", problem is this scheme is neither perfect nor good. If traffickers were to design something to maximize ways to exploit people it would potentially look like this, and it doesn't need to. We already have models which work 2/
Local authorities mechanisms already exist, and as shown in the past, could be activated to provide necessary protection and support through a multi-agency, multi-disciplinary approach, which would meet immediate safeguarding needs. 3/
It's absolutely brilliant that there has been such a huge response from the British public to accommodate refugees, and it is truly disturbing that we are in a place where 44,000 could feasibly to do so without even being DBS checked. #r4today. 1/
Over a number of years the previous "community sponsorship scheme" took about 600 people, so you can't even use that as a basis to argue what will or won't happen with the government #HomesForUkraine scheme. What you can do is look at the evidence and worry about safeguarding. 2/
"Light touch" National approach in the immediacy means people are being properly vetted before they take Ukrainian citizens into their homes. By only later on down the line having more detailed local authority checks you all but guarantee people slipping through the cracks. 3/
Gove's statement light on detail. No timeframe it seems for full implementation. No confirmation of long-term safeguarding. 6 month requirement for sponsors to provide accommodation, leaving open for future disruption, and social media to find matches. Not close to good enough
Any scheme cannot rely on the goodwill of the public. It needs proper frameworks. Use existing local authority frameworks and expand them with genuine investment as an example of how to implement a scheme now.
Currently this scheme still looks likely to minimise the number of people in the immediacy who can reach UK for safety, while putting the responsibility for protection on the public and allowing the government to sidestep criticism,
Thread: The government's latest scheme to help Ukrainian refugees raises quite a number of concerns and even more questions. Yes, the UK needs to do something, but this really doesn't seem like the answer based on the available information. 1/ #r4today
After calls for the UK to move quickly and waive visas it may seem strange to criticise the scheme. Waiving visas still, however, required that the government provide assistance and support for refugees. It was never about just saying "come in and sort yourselves out". 2/
The most significant risk is that increases the danger of refugees being exploited and even trafficked. We already see how a failure to provide proper specialist support puts, particularly children, at risk in hotels, this seems to multiply the issue. 3/ independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-n…
An improvement, but the plan is still only a three year visa. People still need the right to seek asylum and be provided with long-term assistance. Not to mention, among other things, the real risks of exploitation which the sponsorship scheme opens up.
And this is a perfect example of why what is needed is for visas to be waived, not for a new visa scheme to be put. Home Office bureaucracy has been destroying people's lives for decades. Something tells me that increasing it isn't the way forward.
We have seen now schemes such as the seasonal workers scheme, you all remember, that was the one immigration minister Kevin Foster said Ukrainian refugees could use, have led to worker exploitation. This scheme risks being even worse.