Asylum-seeker crossings to be top priority for Suella Braverman; The Times says she will "double down" on Rwanda policy
The Observer reported on Saturday that the new Home Secretary Suella Braverman has set the Home Office a target of entirely stopping small boats crossing the Channel.
While the article gave no direct quotes from Braverman, the Observer reported that the Home Secretary told Home Office staff during her inaugural address on Wednesday that she wanted to ban all small boats crossing the Channel and this would be a top priority for her.
One anonymous civil service source was quoted as saying: "Suggesting she can stop all boat crossings is pie in the sky – it doesn't bode well."
The Times reported earlier in the week that pursuing fresh talks with the French government over the crossings is set to be a top priority for the new Home Secretary. In addition, the Times said Braverman wants to substantially increase the use of detention facilities to house asylum seekers who cross the Channel.
Close allies of Braverman also told The Times that she intends to "double down" on the policy of relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda.
In analysis on Free Movement, Colin Yeo said it is abundantly clear from her previous statements that Braverman is fully committed to the Rwanda policy. Yeo says we can expect similar rhetoric from the new Home Secretary to her predecessor, but Braverman may prove more subtle and effective than Priti Patel. Yeo speculates that Braverman's former career as a barrister working in the field of immigration law may tempt her to involve herself in the legal detail of some of the issues she faces as Home Secretary.
Five-day hearing in High Court on the Rwanda policy
Last week, the High Court heard the crucial court case on the legality of the Rwanda policy brought by Care4Calais, Detention Action and the Public & Commercial Services Union (PCS). BBC News notes that a second stage of the case will take place in October before the High Court gives its ruling. Asylum Aid said its second-stage challenge is set for 10 and 11 October.
News media had plenty of coverage of the five-day hearing at the High Court.
BBC news noted that the claimants said ministers had been repeatedly warned about Rwanda's human rights record in the Government's own documents, and Rwanda was initially ruled out as a potential candidate for a migration partnership because of its record.
BBC News quoted Raza Husain QC, speaking for the claimants, as saying: "We make no bones about our submission that Rwanda is a one-party authoritarian state that does not tolerate political opposition. It is a regime that repeatedly imprisons tortures and murders those its thinks is its political opponents. Those who protest or dissent from government directives, including refugees, are faced with police violence. All of those observations are drawn from our own government officials."
The Independent reported: "The claimant's legal submissions said that the Home Secretary, and UK government more generally, were 'aware of and appear to have had serious concerns over Rwanda's present and historic human rights record', and that 'concerns were articulated repeatedly by public officials'."
The Guardian has more about how 'red flags were brushed aside to push through Rwanda deal' in an article from Friday here. The article states: "What the documents show, beginning with a diplomatic telegram from the British high commissioner to Rwanda, dated 18 September 2020, are repeated concerns about the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination country for asylum seekers. The high commissioner expressed alarm about a lack of freedom of speech and the disappearance of opponents of the country's president, Paul Kagame."
The Evening Standard reported that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) told the Court on the second day of the hearing that the Rwanda policy was incompatible with the UK's fundamental obligations.
Laura Dubinsky QC, speaking for UNHCR, told the Court: "UNHCR regrets, particularly in relation to one of the founding states of the Refugee Convention, that it is necessary for it to warn that the UK-Rwanda Arrangement is incompatible with UK's fundamental obligations under the Refugee Convention."
Dubinsky added that Rwanda "lacks irreducible minimum components of an accessible, reliable, fair and efficient asylum system" and there are serious defects in its refugee status determination system. Some asylum claims are improperly rejected by the Rwandan Directorate-General of Immigration and Emigration without being properly considered. UNHCR reported that asylum seekers from countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen were "systematically rejected in their claims" and had a 100% refusal rate.
On Thursday, BBC News quoted Lord David Pannick QC, representing the Government, as saying: "The [international law] obligation on the UK is to either assess the claim or return the asylum seeker to a safe third country. If we choose to return the individual to a third country that is safe, then we, the UK, have complied with our obligations under the Refugee Convention."
Pannick argued that the Home Secretary could send migrants to another country provided she could show it was safe under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
As reported by The Independent, Sir James Eadie QC also spoke for the Government to say that "there has been the most intensive consideration and investigation of that scheme imaginable" and it has "very significant safeguarding elements". Eadie said there were "powerful reasons" for concluding that "Rwanda will honour the commitments that it has solemnly made in all of these arrangements".
Case will have international significance
In an interview last week, Human Rights Watch's UK advocacy director Yasmine Ahmed noted that the case's significance goes beyond the UK and it could set a precedent that undermines the Refugee Convention.
"Not only will the High Court's ruling decide whether the UK government can proceed with its cruel plan to expel people seeking protection, but it could set a precedent that undermines the international legal regime which provides protection for those fleeing persecution. If the UK, one of the primary architects of the 1951 Refugee Convention, no longer thinks the rules should apply, this could have a worrying ripple effect on how other countries respect or interpret this international protection regime," Ahmed said.
She continued: "I think it is really important to stress how this decision could impact on the wider international context, which is the incredibly concerning trend of countries attempting to shirk their responsibilities to refugees and asylum seekers. We have already seen this happen in Australia, where the offshoring of asylum seekers and refugees to Nauru and Papua New Guinea resulted in terrible abuses, including suicide attempts. Since the policy began in 2013, 12 people have died. Also, it appears as though Denmark is hoping to follow Britain's lead by sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, and both the United States and EU have introduced policies that are geared towards deterring refugees or containing them outside of their borders.
"If the UK is successful in the courts, the ripple effect could seriously undermine international standards and shift the goalposts on what is deemed acceptable when it comes to the protections we offer asylum seekers and refugees. This isn't just a case that will impact on those coming to the UK: its impacts could be wide reaching."