The Financial Times recently reported the leak of documents outlining discussions amongst UK government officials to introduce offshore asylum processing centres. Home Secretary Priti Patel reportedly asked officials to look at asylum policies that have been successful in other countries. This includes the policies of Australia, where asylum seekers have been detained in processing centres on the islands of Nauru and Papua New Guinea for indefinite periods of time. Officials were then asked to “explore the construction of an asylum processing centre on Ascension Island,” a British overseas territory. The purpose of such suggestions is to curve the influx of asylum seekers coming to the UK.

While nothing has been decided on the matter, the Home Office has said that “all options are on the table” causing concern amongst human rights groups, who fear that the centres will breach international human rights laws. 

ASYLUM SEEKERS AND THE UK

The treatment of undocumented migrants under Boris Johnson’s government has been a contested issue in the UK – and one that does not seem to be going away any time soon. So far in 2020, 7,000 people have arrived illegally by boat from across the channel – a staggering increase from the 500 that were recorded in 2018. Patel, having deemed the figure “appalling and exceptionally high,” claims to be working to “make this route unviable” for migrants in the future. 

However, Patel’s suggestions to deter undocumented migrants are far from the humane, empathetic solutions that human rights activists hope for. The government has already been criticised for its use of harsh detention centres like Morton Hall– a former prison and holding centre in remote Lincolnshire. If self-harm, violence, and brutality can take place on UK shores, then the idea of offshore holding centres poses a significant threat to asylum seekers arriving in the UK. 

AUSTRALIA’S POLICY

Under the Australian system for asylum seekers, migrants seeking asylum who are intercepted in international waters, are transferred to an offshore detention centre while their application for asylum is processed by the authorities. This system does not discriminate in its severity, and has placed men, women and children in cramped and unhealthy conditions where they are often separated from family for long periods of time. Australian authorities have admitted that at least 12 people have died in these centres, while thousands have been given medical treatment for mental health issues or self-harm.

The legal procedure to be granted asylum is often extremely lengthy, and many asylum seekers are left in these detention centres for years, often with no assurance or hope that they will be rehomed. This, combined with insufficient access to healthcare and education as well as heavily guarded prison-like living conditions has had a severe effect on the quality of detainees’ lives. Australia’s director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) Elaine Pearson said that “prolonged and indefinite detention has driven people to breaking point, with alarming levels of trauma, depression and other mental health conditions”. 

This system has come under fire for flouting international law and for human rights abuses, with human rights groups like HRW and Amnesty International speaking out against the Australian government. 

A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE

The 1951 Human Rights Convention states that: 

As a general rule, detention of asylum-seekers is not acceptable. It is particularly undesirable when those detained include very vulnerable – children, single women and people with special medical or psychological needs, such as torture victims.

Australia’s government policy violates the 1951 convention in a number of ways. Not only does it disregard the needs of the vulnerable, it also unnecessarily imprisons asylum seekers for an indefinite period of time and, reportedly, fails to inform detainees of their rights or of where they can access legal support.

If the UK government is to send asylum seekers to offshore centres on islands in the South Atlantic, it is almost guaranteed that they would face the same fate as those on Nauru or PNG. Not only would the journey to the detention centres be an unnecessary, logistical nightmare which could cost taxpayers millions – the Australian system costs £7.2bna year - but asylum seekers would also have limited access to human rights groups, legal and health professionals, and others who could facilitate their integration into British society.

Alarmingly, The Guardian reports that the Home Office documents suggest that British proposals would be harsher and more discriminatory than Australia’s policies. According to The Guardian, the UK’s proposals would involve relocating asylum seekers who have already arrived and begun their integration into the UK. While Australia intercepts migrants outside Australian waters – who are not yet within Australian jurisdiction - the UK’s proposal would affect those under the UK’s jurisdiction with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998. 

The Human Rights Act incorporates rights under the ECHR into British law, ensuring that  UK authorities do not fall short of the obligations set out by the ECHR. Under these laws, asylum seekers must not be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment, and interference with private or family life is prohibited. In sending asylum seekers to offshore detention centres, the UK not only risks dividing families, but potentially holding people in unfit conditions for prolonged periods of time, thus causing harm to their physical and mental wellbeing.  

With Brexit threatening the power of European Human Rights laws on UK soil, and an emergence of far right politics in the Cabinet, the UK government needs to think very carefully about how they proceed on policies regarding asylum seekers. UK politicians must ensure that they do not violate human rights accords and conventions, which the UK has helped to shape. As a European superpower and a significant political actor on the international stage, the UK has a responsibility to support and protect the world’s most vulnerable people. Australia’s experience tells us that this cannot, and will not, be done in detention centres thousands of miles away. 

Holly has a Master’s Degree in International Relations from Liverpool Hope University. She has a specific interest in gender equality and wrote her dissertation on role of the female peace movement in modern society as well as recently completing a course in Feminism and Social Justice at UCSC. Having worked for three years as a multilingual foreign news editor, she is pursuing a career in international relations and communication.

LinkedIn