[ad_1]
Downing Street has asked officials to consider the option of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Morocco or Papua New Guinea and is the driving force behind proposals to keep refugees in overseas detention centers, according to documents seen by The Guardian.
The documents suggest that Foreign Ministry officials have been rejecting Number 10’s proposals to process asylum applications in overseas detention centers, which have also included the suggestion that the centers could be built on the Ascension Islands and Santa Elena in the South Atlantic.
The documents, marked “official” and “sensitive” and produced earlier this month, summarize the advice of Foreign Office officials, who Downing Street asked to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating a facility of asylum processing abroad similar to that in Australia. ” model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru ”.
The Australian system of processing asylum seekers in the Pacific Islands costs AY $ 13 billion (£ 7.2 billion) a year and has drawn criticism from the human rights group, the United Nations and even the UK government, according to the documents, which reveal the British. Ministers have expressed their concern “privately” to Australia over the abuse of detainees in its detention centers on the high seas.
The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that Home Secretary Priti Patel asked officials to consider prosecuting asylum seekers Ascension and St Helena, which are British overseas territories. Home Office sources were quick to distance Patel from the proposals and Downing Street also downplayed Ascension and St Helena as destinations for asylum processing centers.
However, documents seen by The Guardian suggest that the government has been working for weeks on “detailed plans” that include cost estimates to build asylum detention camps on the South Atlantic islands, as well as other proposals to build such facilities. in Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea.
The documents suggest that the UK’s proposals would go beyond Australia’s hardline system, which “relies on the interception of migrants outside Australian waters”, allowing Australia not to claim immigration obligations from individuals. The UK proposals, according to the documents, would involve the relocation of asylum seekers who “have arrived in the UK and are firmly within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998” .
The documents suggest that the idea that Morocco, Moldova and Papua New Guinea could be suitable destinations for UK asylum processing centers comes directly from Downing Street, with documents saying the three countries were specifically “suggested” and ” floated “by the number 10. One document says the request for advice on third country detention center options came from the” PM.
While drafted in the mild language of public officials, the Foreign Office advice contained in the documents appears highly disparaging of the ideas emanating from Downing Street, pointing to numerous legal, practical and diplomatic obstacles to prosecuting applicants for supervised nursing homes. The documents state that:
• Plans to process asylum seekers in offshore centers on Ascensión or Santa Elena would be “extremely costly and logistically complicated” given the remoteness of the islands. The estimated cost is £ 220 million construction cost per 1,000 beds and running costs £ 200 million. One document adds: “In relation to Santa Elena, we will have to consider whether we are willing to impose the plan if the local government objects.”
• Legal, diplomatic and practical obstacles “important” to the plan include the existence of “sensitive military installations” on Ascension Island. One document warns that military problems mean “it will mean that the United States government will need to be persuaded at the highest level, and even then success cannot be guaranteed.”
• It is “highly unlikely” that any North African state, including Morocco, will agree to host asylum seekers relocated to the UK. “No country in North Africa, including Morocco, has a fully functioning asylum system,” states a document. “Morocco would not have the resources (or the inclination) to pay for a processing center.”
• Apparently scrapping the idea of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Foreign Ministry officials say there is a protracted conflict in the eastern European country over Transnistria, as well as “endemic” corruption. They add: “If an asylum center depended on the reliable, transparent and credible cooperation of the judicial system of the host country, we could not rely on this.”
• Officials warned of “significant political and logistical obstacles” to sending asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, noting that it is more than 13,000 kilometers away, has a fragile public health system and is “one of the few countries in the world with fewer medical staff per capita. ”They also warn that any such move would“ renew scrutiny of Australia’s own offshore processing. ”One document adds:“ Politically, we view the chances of positive engagement with the government on this as slim to none. “.
A source at the Foreign Office played down the idea that the department had opposed Downing Street’s relocation proposals for asylum seekers, saying officials’ concerns were only about the plan’s practicality. “This was something the Cabinet Office commissioned, to which we responded with full vigor, to show how things could work,” the source said.
However, another Whitehall source familiar with the government’s plans said they were part of a push by Downing Street to “radically tighten the hostile environment” in 2021 following the end of the Brexit transition. The phrase “hostile environment” by former Prime Minister Theresa May, which was closely associated with the policies that led to the Windrush scandal, is no longer used in government.
But the source said steps are being taken to find a list of new policies that achieve a similar goal to “discourage” and “deter” immigrants from entering the UK illegally.
The documents also contain details of the Home Office’s legal advice to Downing Street, which states that the policy would require legislative changes, including the “repeal of sections 77 and 78 of the Immigration and Nationality Asylum Act of 2002 for the Asylum seekers can be expelled from the UK while their claim or appeal is pending.
Another possible legislative change, according to the advice of the Ministry of the Interior, would require “defining what we understand by clandestine arrival (and potentially a late application) and creating powers that allow us to send them abroad to determine their asylum applications.”
One of the documents states that the option to build detention centers in foreign countries, rather than British overseas territories, “is not the favored 10th avenue, but they want to explore [the option] in case it presents easier paths to an offshore installation ”.
On Wednesday, when asked about the FT report on the UK considering plans to send asylum seekers to the South Atlantic for processing, Boris Johnson’s spokesman confirmed that the UK was considering offshore-style processing centers. Australian.
He said the UK has a “long and proud history” of accepting asylum seekers, but must act, especially given migrants who cross unofficially from France in small boats.
“We are developing plans to reform our illegal migration and asylum policies so that we can continue to provide protection to those in need, while preventing abuse of the system and crime. As part of this work, we have been looking at what many other countries are doing to inform a plan for the UK. And that work is in progress. “
When asked for comment on the proposals regarding Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea, Downing Street referred The Guardian to the spokesperson ‘s previous comments. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred the Guardian to the Ministry of the Interior. The Interior Ministry said it had nothing to add to the prime minister’s spokesman comments.
