The government’s sponsorship scheme for Ukrainian refugees is radical – and not without risk

Editorial: For the first time, private British citizens will be able to officially ‘sponsor’ a complete stranger to come and share their home, apparently for a period of at least six months

(Dave Brown)

After chaos comes innovation, of sorts. Ever since the Russians invaded Ukraine – an eventuality the intelligence services were warning about for weeks in advance – ministers have found themselves scrambling to devise suitable ways of getting Ukrainian refugees safely to Britain (or not, all too often) and playing catch-up with the remarkable wave of public sympathy for the plight of the Ukrainian people.

As home secretary for a party that has spent more than a decade creating hostile environments and erecting bureaucratic obstacles to offering shelter to those in need, suddenly Priti Patel has had to contort her usual scowls and smirks into a warm, beaming face of welcome. Or rather, she will have to bite her lip while Michael Gove, who has been given responsibility for this part of Ms Patel’s usual brief, gets on with delivering it.

Even now, after some hasty U-turns, the schemes are not yet in place, and once they are they may prove inadequate to the challenge, just as in the past. But one, the sponsorship scheme, looks to be one of the most radical social experiments tried by any government since the end of the Second World War.

Charities, businesses and community groups will be able to volunteer to help house and feed refugees, and find them useful work. For the first time, private British citizens will be able to officially “sponsor” a complete stranger to come and share their home, apparently for a period of at least six months.

To give the government credit, the usual counterproductive restrictions on asylum seekers are being lifted (begging the question of what makes the Ukrainians so special). Once in Britain, the Ukrainian refugees will be permitted to work (for pay) as well as being eligible for social security and NHS care. It is a better offer.

There are some obvious questions, though.

How, for example, will Mr Gove’s Department for Levelling Up organise this new matchmaking function, allocating refugees to different households? Who’s going to do the promised vetting, on both sides? How will they police the conditions the refugees will be housed in?

What is there in place to prevent economic exploitation, and worse, of these vulnerable people, who will be predominantly women and children? What happens if things go wrong? After the six months is up, then what? Is there to be a route to permanent settlement?

Ministers – as well as those individuals and families confident enough to participate in the scheme – need to have some workable ground rules and sources of advice and help. The Ukrainians have fled a war zone, left partners and families behind, may not speak good English, and will have been traumatised. It will not simply be a matter of showing them where the spare room is.

There is also the danger that the sponsorship scheme will feel a touch condescending. Worse still, it may provide a new battleground in Britain’s unending culture wars, with every liberal celebrity and opposition politician asked about precisely how many Ukrainians they will be allowing to live in their big houses, with the depressingly predictable charge of “hypocrisy” not far behind.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Elements of the press will no doubt pursue those refugees sharing the Starmer or Cooper-Balls households to find out how things are going. And some places, sadly, will be hostile to the newcomers.

For a government with little inclination to devote resources to caring for refugees, or to spend money on putting them up in hotels or hostels, the notion of tapping up the public’s generosity for a low-cost solution at the same time as being seen to “do the right thing” must be very tempting.

It is, though, the privatisation of compassion – and it wrongly limits the extent of the unqualified, and unlimited, legal and moral obligation to offer assistance to those seeking asylum. Whatever else, it is not a long-term solution to the challenge Europe faces.

The Independent has a proud history of campaigning for the rights of the most vulnerable, and we first ran our Refugees Welcome campaign during the war in Syria in 2015. Now, as we renew our campaign and launch this petition in the wake of the unfolding Ukrainian crisis, we are calling on the government to go further and faster to ensure help is delivered. To find out more about our Refugees Welcome campaign, click here. To sign the petition click here. If you would like to donate then please click here for our GoFundMe page.