Figures show that at the end of August around 5,000 asylum seekers had arrived in the UK via the dangerous Channel crossing. This is a marked increase in crossings undertaken in 2019 but ignores the reality of the situation. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many other routes into the UK have been closed off, leaving the Channel as the main entry route. This is evidenced by the fact that in the April to June quarter of 2020, asylum applications were at their lowest level for the quarter since 2010.

PROPOSALS

In order to deal with this supposed crisis, several proposals have been considered by the Home Office. ‘All options are on the table’ according to Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary to the Home Office. 

EXAMINING THE OPTIONS

On the 29th September, the Financial Times reported that Home Office officials had been examining the idea to build an asylum processing centre on Ascension Island. This little-known volcanic outcrop is a British overseas territory located in the south Atlantic, 4,000 miles from the UK. A similar system of transferring asylum seekers to offshore processing centres has been used by Australia for almost 10 years. This model has drawn condemnation from governments across the globe and human rights organisations. In fact, in 2016 leaked documents showed 2,000 incidents of violence, child abuse and self-harm being suffered in the Australian facility in Nauru. These facilities are proven to produce harrowing experiences.

The fact that the government is willing to consider this Australian model may show the influence which ex Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is having in Whitehall. The idea was quickly rebuffed by the opposition, with Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds describing the idea as ‘inhumane, completely impractical and wildly expensive.’

Officials also considered similar facilities in Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea. These ideas seem to have been struck down quickly due to the practical and political implications related to such steps. However, a poll by YouGov indicates that 40% of Britons think the Ascension Island plan is a good idea. Thankfully, these proposals seem to have been ‘taken off the table.’

While building processing centres on distant volcanic islands no longer seems like an option, the government is still keen on tackling ‘small boat crossings.’ Conservative MP for Sevenoaks in Kent, Laura Trott, argues that new solutions are needed to ‘reduce the pressure’ on Kent. Thus, proposals closer to home are under review. The possibility of converting old ferries into centres which can be moored off the coast and using an island off Scotland seem to have been mooted in government. Nicola Sturgeon expressed outrage and has promised to meet ‘any proposal to treat human beings like cattle in a holding pen’ with strong opposition. 

IMPLICATIONS

All these ideas have broader legal, economic and moral implications. 

As a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UK must ensure that these centres are not used to indirectly return refugees back to their country of origin. The UK simply cannot continue to break international law in a bid to solve its problems. Questions should also be raised about the availability of legal representation for asylum seekers who are offshore as they have a legal right to speak with a lawyer.  Further to this, s77 of the UK Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 expressly prohibits the removal of asylum seekers from the UK while their claim is pending. Change to this provision would require express authority from Parliament. 

Economically, these plans are expensive and resource intensive. The government is already criticised for supporting asylum seekers with just over £5 a day. It is in no one's best interests to spend huge sums of money to house vulnerable asylum seekers offshore in conditions which will inevitably lead them to suffering psychological harm. 

Finally, this ties into the wider moral and political issues at play. The Home Office is trying to move away from its bad publicity when it comes to migrants. On Wednesday, the Home Office published its response to the ‘Windrush Lessons Learned Review.’ In the response Priti Patel stated that she wants to build a more compassionate Home Office which sees the ‘face behind the case.’ This seems quite hard to do when you are offshoring those very people. 

Mahin is a final year LLB student at the University of Exeter. He is an aspiring human rights lawyer who is interested in bringing attention to human rights abuses. He is looking to practice in public law, international human rights and civil liberties.

LinkedIn