Home Secretary Suella Braverman has admitted she cannot guarantee that her legislation designed to prevent refugees arriving in Britain on small boats will be compatible with human rights laws.
Under the plans anyone crossing the channel to claim asylum will be removed “as soon as reasonably practicable” to Rwanda or a safe third country.
The Government has paid more than £140 million to Rwanda but no flights forcibly carrying asylum seekers to the capital of Kigali have taken off because of legal challenges.
Travelling to another country to seek asylum is not illegal and is protected under international law, but the Conservative government has looked to punish those who do not arrive by "safe and legal" routes such as the UK Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship, or the Mandate Scheme.
Read More: Scottish Tories urge SNP leadership hopefuls to stop 'hysterical attacks' on media
It has also attempted to argue that the small number of people making the crossing from Calais to Britain are not genuine refugees.
However, data from EU external border control agency, FRONTEX, say that the large majority of people coming into the EU come from Syria, Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Of these, by far the largest group are Syrians.
Most asylum claims in the UK are successful – in 2021, the estimated overall grant rate where a final outcome has been reached was 77 per cent.
Under the proposals in the bill, arrivals will be prevented from claiming asylum while in the UK, with plans also to ban them from returning once removed.
Downing Street said the limited safe and legal routes to asylum in the UK will be increased – but only “once we have stopped the boats”.
However, it is unclear if the plans will be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which signed into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights.
And addressing MPs in the House of Commons Ms Braverman admitted that she couldn't guarantee the bill would be compatible with existing law.
She said: "Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we can’t make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19 1b of the Human Rights Act.
“Of course the UK will always seek to uphold international law and I am confident that this Bill is compatible with international obligations.”
Since 2014, the UK has resettled around 18,000 refugees from Syria, compared to near 4 million Syrians who have sought asylum in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Turkey and Pakistan host more refugees than all EU countries combined.
Around 3,000 asylum seekers are housed in the Calais 'jungle', with France processing nearly twice as many asylum claims per year than the UK.
In addition, asylum seekers are not permitted to work in the UK while their status remains in question, unless that period exceeds 12 months.
Read More: Fans using 'private areas' and child 'mules' to smuggle pyrotechnics into games
Ms Braverman told the Commons: “To anyone proposing de facto open borders through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let’s be honest, there are a hundred million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws.
“Let’s be clear, they are coming here. We’ve seen a 500% increase in small boats crossing in two years.
“This is the crucial point of this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows that if you enter Britain illegally you will be detained and swiftly removed.
“Removed back to your country if it is safe, or to a safe third country like Rwanda. And that is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will stop the boats.”
Just under 46,000 were believed to have made the crossing in 2021, far lower than the arrivals in the likes of Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and Hungary.
Amnesty International UK said: "The UK Government's new asylum plan is a disaster, avoiding responsibilities and punishing people fleeing conflict and persecution.
"The Prime Minister must clean up the mess made by the Home Secretary and her predecessor and create safe routes."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel