On 24 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin shocked the world by announcing his “special military operation” in Ukraine. Since then, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has reported over 3, 776 casualties, including 1,563 killed and 2,213 injured. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this has resulted in over 4.2 million Ukrainians refugees fleeing the country, 60% of whom have escaped to Poland.
Whilst the United Kingdom (UK) has played a significant role in supporting Ukraine by providing military aid, unfortunately their response to refugees fleeing the invasion has been far from sufficient.
THE CURRENT UK LEGISLATION
At the beginning of March, the UK government introduced two schemes to support Ukrainian refugees. The first scheme is the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme, which involves UK citizens offering up accommodation which Ukrainian refugees can apply for. The second scheme is the Ukraine Family Scheme, for people seeking to join relatives or extend their stay in the UK.
Unfortunately, both schemes impose strict visa requirements on the refugees. Firstly, this is problematic as many charities have revealed the visa application process is largely inaccessible. In particular, Lauren Scott, the executive director of Refugees at Home, expressed her concern of the applications being “long and difficult to complete” as people fleeing their homes do not always have access to the internet or the required paperwork.
Most importantly, visas cannot be granted based on the circumstances of being an asylum-seeker. As a result, refugees are subjected to what Amnesty International refers to as a 'Catch-22' legislation in which they have no hope of protection. As stated by Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson, Alistair Carmichael; "as if the anxiety and uncertainty of fleeing their homes isn't awful enough, Ukrainians are being left stranded in purgatory by a visa scheme in shambles. It is simply unforgivable".
Whilst ministers justify these visa requirements on the basis of security grounds, we must recognise that other European countries have relinquished checks in response to the urgent humanitarian crisis, with the majority of EU countries allowing Ukrainian refugees in for up to three years without a visa.
INTERNATIONAL DUTY TO PROVIDE ASYLUM
A common misconception is that it is the same system that covers both immigration and asylum. However, these are distinct systems which operate very differently. The immigration system requires that people obtain permission before travelling to another country. In direct contrast, the right to “seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” is a fundamental human right protected in international law, and is required to be granted without discrimination.
The protection of this right is enshrined under the 1951 Refugee Convention (the Convention). As the UK is a signatory, it is legally bound to provide protection to asylum seekers; this includes enabling them to enter the country without the risk of being rejected at the border. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees the application of the Convention, recently reaffirmed this responsibility as it declared that the failure to fulfil this responsibility puts the legitimacy of the whole international asylum system at risk.
Despite this, the UK requires asylum-seekers to apply for a visa, a form of permission, in order to enter the UK. The UK is clearly breaching their obligations to asylum seekers under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which has been further evidenced in the failures of the two schemes.
THE FALSE HOPE UNDER THE “HOMES FOR UKRAINE” SCHEME
As of 14 March 2022, Michael Gove, the Housing and Communities Secretary, introduced the Homes for Ukraine scheme. The objective was to allow individuals, charities and businesses to bring Ukrainians to safety, irrespective of whether they have family ties in the UK. Gove promised this would secure the protection of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians. Nonetheless, the public was left disillusioned with the politician's empty promises. The head of Positive Action in Housing, Robina Qureshi, said the government's Homes for Ukraine scheme had given people "false hope".
The first issue was lack of knowledge about this scheme among people in Ukraine that were being forced to flee their homes. Andrew Murray, a Scottish technology worker, called the scheme a “disgrace,” as he revealed that upon meeting Lviv council workers, none of them had even heard of it. Mr Murray said that information about this scheme is only "being passed on through the grassroots and word of mouth”.
Above all, the most significant shortcoming of the scheme is the requirement for UK families to identify the Ukrainian family they believe is fit to sponsor. Ukrainian families have faced enough emotional distress, yet are now expected to advertise themselves as deserving of sponsorship via social media in hopes of getting noticed. This inequitable process exposes vulnerable individuals to the risk of human trafficking, which often occurs among displaced populations.
The failures of this scheme demonstrate a breach of the Home Secretary, Priti Patel’s, obligation to asylum seekers under international law. The inadequacy of the scheme is shown by the figures: more than 100,000 Britons have signed up to provide accommodation to refugees fleeing the Russian invasion. However, the Minister for Children and Families, Will Quince, revealed that just over 1,000 Ukrainian refugees had made it to the UK under this sponsorship scheme, despite applications by Ukrainians reaching 28,300.
THE FUTURE OF THE UK’S ASYLUM SYSTEM
The current protections afforded under the UK asylum policies are insufficient. Moreover, there is a clear disconnect between the promises of politicians and the willing support of British citizens. Over time, it is becoming increasingly clear that the proposed schemes lack the coordination to make a meaningful impact to the lives of Ukrainian refugees.
This inadequacy will undoubtedly be exasperated by the Nationality and Borders Bill. After completing its passage in the House of Lords, the Bill is expected to become law in April 2022. The objective of the Bill is proposedly to make the immigration system more efficient by being stricter on illegal immigration. If this becomes law, the UNHCR has confirmed it would result in the penalisation of most refugees seeking asylum in the UK, thereby “undermining international refugee protection rules and practices”.
This is evident in clause 11, that confers a lesser status with fewer rights to refugees, causing unnecessary suffering to those fleeing persecution. In addition, clause 9 will extend the powers of the Home Secretary so that British nationals may be deprived of their citizenship without notice; endangering their lives by risking statelessness. Amnesty International stated the widespread consequences of this Bill will "forcefully shut the door" on more refugees, while continuing to punish those who risk their lives to come.
Ideally, the UK should step up in its role of supporting refugees by improving the UK’s capacity and ability to provide asylum. Rather than introducing legislation such as the Nationality and Borders Bill which makes it more difficult for individuals to get asylum in the UK, the country should temporarily waive visa requirements and the lengthy paperwork for Ukrainian refugees to accommodate the urgency of their need for shelter and safety. In addition, bottom-up initiatives in the Ukraine would help to educate their local authorities about the UK’s asylum schemes, and create a process for connecting Ukrainians to UK households.
Ultimately, there is a pressing need for immediate action by the UK, as the lives of innocent civilians in Ukraine are still at risk. Hopefully the UK will see this need and take action, because the current asylum system in the UK is failing Ukrainian refugees.
Beatrice is a third-year law student at the University of Manchester. She is soon to start Masters of Law with the Human Rights specialism at UCL, and has a deep interest in international and humanitarian law as well as global economic policy.