LCHR’s longstanding Chair and Executive Director, Andrew Noakes, is standing down from the day-to-day running of LCHR in June. We are now searching for someone to replace him as head of our organisation, occupying the position of Chair. This is a voluntary role to be carried out in the successful candidate’s spare time.
The Chair will lead on all aspects of LCHR’s work, including strategy, campaigning, policy, organisational tasks, and fundraising. They will be free to appoint their own committee of volunteer officers to assist them in these areas.
This is a rare opportunity to take the helm of a well-known and effective human rights organisation that campaigns for change within and beyond the Labour Party.
Please note, the successful candidate will receive mentoring from LCHR’s board of directors to help them understand their role and responsibilities.
To apply, please send your CV and cover letter to Andrew Noakes at email@example.com. If you have any questions about the role prior to applying, you’re also welcome to email these over.
The deadline for applications is 7 June.
Please note: as a voluntary role, the hours for this position are flexible and the successful candidate will be free to fit the role around their other responsibilities.
A message from our founder and Executive Director, Andrew Noakes:
I’m writing to let you know that I’ll be standing down as Executive Director of the Labour Campaign for Human Rights at the end of this month.
It’s been my honour to lead this organisation since its inception five years ago. Back then, we were just a handful of volunteers looking to get involved in the Labour Party and make a difference for human rights. I never imagined that, five years later, LCHR could be what it is now. I’m proud of everything we’ve achieved.
It’s time for someone new to take LCHR forward, reinvigorating our organisation with new leadership and new ideas. My successor will be appointed by the board of directors after an open recruitment and selection process. Look out for the advert in the next few days. I will continue to serve on the board of directors for an interim period to ensure a smooth transition.
Thanks for all your support over the last five years, and here’s to many more years of LCHR flourishing and being a force for good.
LCHR’s preference is for a post-Brexit immigration system based on free movement or a variation of free movement. However, if this proves impossible to attain, it will be vital for Labour to ensure the most damaging aspects of the current non-EU system are not foisted on EU nationals.
In our latest briefing, we explore the pitfalls of the current system and argue that any new system implemented for EU nationals arriving in the UK from January 2021 should not mirror it.
Please view a description of the role here. Please note, this is an incredible opportunity to get involved in the running of LCHR, but it’s also a serious responsibility. Being a non-executive director carries legal responsibilities, which you can read more about here.
If you would like to apply, please send your CV and a cover letter to firstname.lastname@example.org by the deadline (22 April). Candidates will be shortlisted, interviewed, and then appointed by the current board. We look forward to your application!
The Labour Campaign for Human Rights is pleased to publish the fourth briefing of our Brexit and human rights project. The briefing provides an objective human rights analysis of three proposed variations on free movement: free movement with a job offer, free movement with an emergency break, and free movement limited by regional or sectoral quotas.
The final section of this briefing considers the recurring human rights risks posed by these three alternatives to free movement, and makes some recommendations for Labour’s priorities for a humane, progressive post-Brexit immigration system.
You can read the briefing here.
Just when it seemed that the government’s chaotic Brexit negotiations had damaged negotiations beyond repair, Theresa May managed to scramble together a compromise on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Irish border that enables talks to progress onto the next stage.
Yet despite the government’s subsequent victory lap, it is worth remembering that this deal was struck months later than scheduled, and contains simply the bare minimum that EU negotiators consider as constituting “adequate progress.” As European President Donald Tusk pointed out, the delayed nature of this deal means that it will be a “furious race against time” to complete the negotiations before March 2019. Most of the substantive and complex issues regarding our future relationship with the EU, including a sustainable solution for the Irish border, have simply been kicked into the not-so-long grass.
On the issue of citizens’ rights, the government must surely be wondering if months of intransigence and bluster that resulted in the needlessly protracted anxiety and uncertainty for millions was really worth it, especially as its last minute agreement largely caved to demands made previously by the EU. It is true that the deal was considerably better than the government had previously indicated, with EU citizens in the UK having the right to stay and maintain many of the rights they currently enjoy. Theresa May also bent one of her supposed ‘red lines’ by allowing the European Court of Justice to remain the final arbiter of EU citizens’ rights for 8 years after withdrawal.
Despite the deal’s positive elements, there has been much opposition to the provision that every EU citizen will have to apply for ‘settled status’ if they are to legally remain in the UK. As pointed out by one immigration expert, it is inevitable that many EU citizens currently in the UK will fail to complete the application in time, due to lack of awareness, education or simple organisation. There are also serious doubts over the Home Office’s capacity to deal with such an influx of applications, as the department currently rejects 29% of applications and recently distributed hundreds of erroneous deportation letters. Settled status therefore risks precipitating a significant spike in undocumented and illegal migrants, who will then have to navigate the ‘hostile environment’ intentionally created by a government obsessed with reducing net migration.
One area in which the deal exceeded expectations is by making most family members of EU citizens eligible for settled status. However, EU citizens who begin a relationship with a foreign national after Brexit day will be subject to the same punitive spousal income requirements which make Britain the worst developed nation for family reunification. As Professor Steve Peers argues, this misses a vital opportunity to ‘level up’ the rights that enable us to live with our loved ones, as the current deal simply means that “migrants will be treated equally badly to nationals.”
Citizens’ rights groups have also been quick to criticise the agreement’s repercussions for UK citizens living in the EU. In July, Theresa May inexplicably rejected an offer made by the EU to guarantee the continuation of rights for Britons in the EU to move freely between member states for work, holidays or retirement. Jane Golding, Chair of British in Europe, lamented the fact that the current agreement fails to provide such a guarantee, with another campaigner describing how British citizens living abroad are “more fearful than ever of being thrown under the Brexit bus.”
It is therefore clear that, despite its generally positive reception, the minutiae of this deal have left many substantial issues unresolved. It is up to Labour to keep the pressure on the government to ensure that the rights of everyone living in Britain are safeguarded as we leave the EU.
Joe Duffy is LCHR’s Campaign Intern