THE SNP have condemned the Tory government for ignoring warnings from experts and ploughing ahead with a plan to send asylum seekers to processing centres abroad.
They have described the policy as “inhumane” and warned the only way for Scotland to detach itself from the policy is to build a fair migration system with independence.
Reports today suggest asylum seekers coming to the UK could be sent to Rwanda for processing as Priti Patel starts talks with officials in Denmark over sharing their centre in the African country.
READ MORE: FMQs: Nicola Sturgeon clashes with Paul Sweeney over Glasgow asylum ban
The Home Secretary will introduce the Nationality and Borders Bill next week to enable the UK Government to send the asylum seekers abroad.
Home Office ministers and officials are said to have discussed their proposals with their counterparts in Denmark, which passed its own laws earlier this month to enable the processing of asylum seekers outside Europe.
The SNP’s Shadow Home Affairs Secretary has urged Priti Patel several times to rule out plans for offshore detention centres, highlighting that the proposal to follow the Australian system, which uses Papua New Guinea, has been widely condemned – including by Refugee Action, the Refugee Council and Scottish Refugee Council, and the UN representative to the UK, Rosella Pagliuchi-Lor.
Today’s reports follow hard-hitting evidence to the Home Affairs Committee from Madeline Gleeson, an expert of the Australian Government’s asylum policy, warning that “any state which is a signatory to international conventions” or “any state which considers itself to be a democratic society based on respect for common decency” should not be considering that offshore processing model.
The lawyer, who specialises in human rights and refugee law, also pointed out the sky-high cost of such a system after Australia spent $7.6 billion (£4.1bn) housing an estimated 3000 people in such centres.
MP Stuart McDonald said: “It is horrifying that the Home Secretary is ploughing ahead with these plans, which have been widely condemned – including by the UN – and would breach the UK’s obligations under Human Rights laws and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
“Scotland wants no part in these inhumane policies. As Scotland has shown by standing up for those who are at risk of being deported, we want a fair and humane migration system, which is based on compassion, dignity and respect. The only way we will get that is with independence.
READ MORE: Bid to overturn UK Government ban and give asylum seekers right to work
“The Home Office already has an abysmal track record – from depriving asylum seekers of the right to work and pitiful levels of asylum support to the disgraceful treatment of those in detention. But plans to ship some of the most vulnerable people in the world miles away to remote island detention centres is beyond reprehensible and doesn’t make sense.
“The plans will cost extraordinary sums as Australia has demonstrated. This is a gross misuse of public money as we continue to tackle the coronavirus pandemic and economic crisis, as well as deal with a damaging and costly Brexit – especially when we know of the trauma it causes and the fact that it breaks international law.
“The UK Government is committed under international law to provide a safe haven for those fleeing persecution – these plans must be axed immediately.”
Gary Christie, head of policy, communications and communities at the Scottish Refugee Council, said: “These nonsensical proposals are a shockingly cruel and brutal tactic of the UK Government’s hostile environment.
“People seeking protection in the UK after fleeing war, terror and oppression deserve to have their cases heard within the UK, and should be entitled to a safe and secure place to stay while awaiting a decision.
“Outsourcing our country’s responsibilities through offshore processing centres cannot fulfil these basic rights.
“This disgraceful announcement has also been made without consultation. The consultation that did take place on the UK Government’s New Plan for Immigration was inappropriately outsourced, very short and exclusionary to many with experience of the asylum system, as well as Scottish stakeholders. The UK can, and must, do better than this.”
Robina Qureshi, from Positive Action in Housing, added: “Priti Patel’s motives for spending hundreds of millions more of taxpayers money on processing asylum seekers offshore needs to be questioned. The UK doesn’t actually have a refugee 'problem' and Scotland certainly does not. And it certainly is less of a 'problem' than it was in 2002, a year after the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq created hundreds of thousands of refugees.
“Asylum numbers are historically low and falling, not rising’. (36,000 as opposed to over 100K in 2002); waiting times for Home Office decisions have soared because the Home Office is slow to make decisions, and even slower since the pandemic.
“More people are waiting longer than six months for a decision. More asylum seekers are genuine refugees than ever before. The proportion of asylum seekers granted refugee status, or a related form of international protection, at the 'initial decision' stage has been around 50% over the past couple of years. That figure is pushed up to 56-66% when you take appeals into account. So most asylum seekers are actually refugees.
“When even refugees from Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran are referred to as migrants or asylum seekers in then you know we have a serious problem with the ability of the Home Office to recognise genuine refugees.
“This looks more like a case of dog whistle politics.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel