Policy Exchange: Stopping small boats crossing The Channel: a new ‘Plan B’, human rights and a new Act
|
Think Tank Policy Exchange today launched a new report calling for:
A new plan to prevent and disincentivise dangerous and unauthorised
maritime arrivals A new approach saying that no one, even a genuine
refugee, who chooses to arrive or attempt to arrive unlawfully in
the UK by small boat (from a safe country, like France) will ever
be granted a right to settle in the UK, unless in the most
exceptional cases A new three stage system applying to everyone
arriving on...Request free trial
Think Tank Policy Exchange today launched a new report calling for:
o Stage One: apprehension of small-boat Channel crossers, and preliminary assessment o Stage Two: the immediate deportation (to a British overseas territory) of the ‘crossers’ for the processing of claims and assessment of circumstances. This would be done by UK officials, on UK responsibility o Stage Three: people who are found to be Convention refugees would be sent to a safe third country for settlement; people who are found not to be Convention refugees would be deported to their home (safe) country - or could voluntarily go to any country willing to take them (as essentially economic migrants) The report argues that the best possible response to the problem of small-boats arrivals, a ‘Plan A’, would be joint UK/EU patrols across the Channel able immediately to return boats to France or Belgium. At present, France and other EU countries seem unwilling to reach an agreement to this effect. In the absence of such agreement, Policy Exchange therefore recommends a more radical course of action, by implementing the ‘Plan B’ described above. This new approach would be underpinned by a new Act of Parliament, which would specifically mandate each step that ministers and officials had to take. This direct mandate from Parliament would also expressly disapply elements of the Human Rights Act that would otherwise result in years of litigation, and would prevent the successful working of ‘Plan B’. ‘Plan B’ is fully consistent with the UK’s international obligations. The paper sets out in detail misconceptions and misunderstandings around the Refugee Convention – which have erroneously led to the belief that Channel-crossers have a legal right to enter the UK and must be allowed to stay. The paper highlights that in fact, if they have entered the UK without permission, even genuine Convention refugees have no right to stay (though they do have the right not to be sent to an unsafe country) – whether they are granted a right to stay is at the discretion of the Government. The report also notes that by the time decisions have been challenged and rechallenged, asylum seekers have often had an opportunity to make enough connections in the UK to be able to mount plausible claims that returning them to France or another safe country would violate their ECHR ‘right to private and family life, or in cases where there would be poor health or mental health care elsewhere, their ‘right to life’. The purpose of Plan A or Plan B is to stop unlawful, uncontrolled and dangerous entry into the UK. Alongside these changes, the Government would be strongly encouraged to adopt a new policy of increased resettlements, here, in direct cooperation with the UNHCR. Professor Richard Ekins, a contributor to the report and head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, said: “The crisis in the Channel warrants a game-changing and humane solution. The crisis may well worsen as events in Ukraine continue to unfold. It is possible to stop the small boats consistently with the UK’s international obligations and moral responsibilities. If Plan A cannot be agreed with France, the Plan B outlined in this report is the way forward.” Also commenting, one of the report’s contributors and Director of Policy Exchange Dean Godson, said: “It is absolutely clear that we must do something about the ongoing small boats crisis. We have people being exploited by ruthless smugglers and traffickers, put in extreme danger, and, tragically, in some cases, losing their lives. “We cannot allow this to continue. At the moment we have thousands of people placing themselves in jeopardy, even though they are already in a safe country, trying to cross The Channel. It is vital we now end the incentive to do so.” Opening UK offices for asylum applications in France or other safe states would deepen rather than relieve the Channel crossing crisis – they would be a powerful ‘pull factor’, and virtually all the disappointed applicants would head for the Channel. The plan the paper outlines would apply only to entry to the UK on small boats. The paper argues thatsmall-boat crossings have three particularly objectionable features:
The report details further work that would need to be explored to establish relations with a safe ‘third state’, that would be willing to accept those deported from the UK who had arrived here unlawfully in small boats. ENDS Notes to Editors
The "Convention rights" as defined in s. 1 of the HRA do not include art. 13 European Conventions on Human Rights (ECHR) (right to an effective remedy). The Bill would need to be having an impact on remedies, for a s. 19 to not to be possible.
|