Homes for ukrainians: michael gove to the rescue | thearticle

The Government has taken a pasting for its slow response to Ukraine. Yet critics should consider that this is already Europe’s biggest refugee crisis since the aftermath of the Second World

War. So far nearly 3 million Ukrainians have fled the Russian invasion, while up to 2 million more have been driven from their homes inside Ukraine and may be expected to join those who have

left. The last European catastrophe of this magnitude was caused by the wars in Yugoslavia during the 1990s, when 4 million people were displaced. Yet not since the post-1945 era, when as

many as 40 million displaced persons were living in camps and the borders of Eastern and Central Europe were redrawn, has war caused human chaos on the scale now overwhelming Ukraine and its

neighbours. Those who have not dealt with millions of people on the move should not be too quick to assume that ministers and officials are mean-spirited or incompetent, merely because at

the time of writing only about 4,000 Ukrainian refugees have been granted visas. The latest poll by Opinium shows that 52 per cent of British adults say the Government has not gone far

enough in helping refugees from Ukraine; just 9 per cent say they would take in refugees themselves. In a trenchant critique, our regular contributor Professor Ian Linden endorses here the

view of Delia Smith and various church leaders that the British response so far has been “dreadful”, “unforgivable” and “inept”. I beg to differ. Devising a system to manage the migration

and accommodation of potentially hundreds of thousands of refugees is not a simple matter. Priti Patel’s decision to require visas and background checks is not motivated by “unsavoury

instincts” — improbable given that her own family was expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin half a century ago — but genuine concerns about national security. Britain is the only country to have

been targeted (twice) by Russian chemical weapons. Any Home Secretary would have demanded reasonable checks both on our guests and, since they are mostly women and children, on their hosts

too. There was also the question of how to pay for the influx, bearing in mind that the large numbers of asylum seekers from Afghanistan and elsewhere already here are costing £4.5 million a

day to look after. Fortunately, the task of designing such a system was given to Michael Gove, perhaps the ablest and most experienced member of the Cabinet. The Homes for Ukrainians scheme

that he announced in the Commons yesterday is still a work in progress, with further details to be announced, but it has already proved popular. Indeed, the website crashed after 90,000

people registered with offers of empty rooms or properties for Ukrainians. Gove has evidently taken on board criticism of excessive red tape and is promising “light touch” vetting rather

than full DBS checks on participating homeowners. By offering an optional tax-free payment of £350 per household per month he has struck a sensible balance between generosity and frugality:

this sum is far less than the £200 a night charged for asylum seekers by hotels and commercial landlords, but it is enough to enable those offering hospitality to sustain it for the six

months envisaged by the scheme. No rent may be charged; meals and other costs are at the host’s discretion. From the refugees’ point of view, the scheme has many advantages compared to

anything on offer elsewhere. They will not be housed in camps or other makeshift accommodation (as most of the million or more Syrians who arrived in Germany in 2015 were) but will live with

British families, which will help them to make contacts, find their feet and improve their English. They will be entitled to use the NHS and receive all benefits (except housing benefit),

with the right to stay for at least three years. Above all, they will immediately have the right to work and dozens of large employers are already offering many thousands of jobs. Homes for

Ukrainians is probably the most robust and generous scheme of its kind anywhere in the world. The only limitation so far is that those who offer hospitality must invite named individuals. As

soon as possible, the next stage of the scheme will extend it by enabling the Government to invite refugees and assign them to hosts. Once it is fully up and running, Gove envisages up to

200,000 refugees being taken in. This compares well with other West European countries: Germany has taken 80,000, Italy 20,000, France under 10,000 and Spain 2,000. Only Italy has plans to

take more than the UK: up to 800,000, a figure which is explained by its large existing Ukraine population of more than 1 million. France expects to take no more than 100,000. The scheme

will come at a price, however. If 200,000 people arrive, the monthly subsidy to providers of hospitality will be £70 million, or nearly £1 billion per annum. Local authorities will be given

£10,500 per refugee to cover the extra burden on education and other services. That will come to £2 billion. And this does not take account of other costs, such as transport and health care

for traumatised refugees who may be suffering from PTSD, bereavement or other consequences of war. Charities will require large-scale funding to play a full part, as of course they should.

In under three weeks, Rishi Sunak has footed the bill for Gove’s package costing several billion. Such a fast turnaround speaks well for the Chancellor (who is no soft touch), the

Levelling-Up Secretary and the Home Secretary too. This is joined-up government on the hoof. Charity that begins and ends at home is only one dimension of the British response to Ukraine. As

I wrote here last week, we should listen to what President Zelensky is asking for: not homes for refugees but arms to defeat the Russian aggressors. The UK has been second to none in

supplying the tools that Ukraine needs to defend itself. Only if the forces under Zelensky can prevent the total destruction of their villages, towns and cities will there be any homes for

the refugees to return to. Britain should help pay for most refugees to stay in neighbouring states, such as Poland and Hungary, so that they are ready to rebuild their shattered land as

soon as peace is restored. Syria is not the model to follow: it has lost a whole generation, probably permanently. A depopulated Ukraine will please only one man: Vladimir Putin. Our aim

should be to look after as many Ukrainians as we can for as long as they require, on the understanding that most will one day go back. But the British people should be able to look back on

this crisis and feel that we played our full part, with compassion and decency, in this supreme test of humanity. Ukrainians need our help now. We must not fail them. A MESSAGE FROM

THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to

continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._