Government under pressure to offer asylum seekers ‘safe passage to our shores’
Home Secretary James Cleverly said in a written statement the UK had a ‘proud history of providing protection for the most vulnerable’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government has been accused of having a “woefully inadequate” plan to curb Channel crossings after failing to offer asylum seekers more legal ways to travel to the UK.
Ministers faced claims the urgent need to cut the dangerous journeys was being “completely overlooked” as they came under fire for ignoring calls from campaigners to establish fresh safe and legal routes, and to test out a humanitarian visa for refugees.
It comes as the Prime Minister is braced for a Commons showdown next week over his Rwanda plan.
Last year, Rishi Sunak said new laws under the Illegal Migration Act would make it “clear that if you come here illegally, you can’t claim asylum” as he vowed to “stop the boats”, prompting questions over how people fleeing war and persecution would legally be able to seek protection in the UK.
The Government was dutybound under the Act to produce a report setting out what is meant by safe and legal asylum routes, and detailing which programmes are already in place, as well as any proposed additional ones.
In a written statement to Parliament on Thursday as the document was published, Home Secretary James Cleverly said the UK had a “proud history of providing protection for the most vulnerable”, highlighting resettlement schemes for people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as routes available to relatives of refugees.
Safe routes are essential if we truly want to stop people having to take dangerous journeys to the UK
He insisted the report “reaffirms the Government’s commitment to providing safe and legal routes for those most in need” despite no plans for new safe and legal routes being announced.
“As we get control on numbers, we will keep under review whether we are able to do more to support vulnerable refugees and whether we need to consider new safe and legal routes,” he added.
The Refugee Council said the report “offers no new safe routes and no improvement of existing schemes”, arguing they are needed to tackle Channel crossings.
The charity’s chief executive Enver Solomon said: “There urgently needs to be an ambitious plan to expand safe routes by improving resettlement and family reunion as well as piloting humanitarian visas.
“The Government’s plans are woefully inadequate with no meaningful commitment to expand safe routes for refugees from war-torn countries such as Sudan and Syria, and those fleeing repressive regimes in countries such as Iran.
“By simply focusing on describing the existing limited schemes, the Government has completely overlooked the urgent need to reduce dangerous Channel crossings by providing safe passage to our shores.”
If the Government was “serious” in its “stop the boats” pledge, it must take “decisive action to significantly increase safe routes for refugees, rather than pushing ahead with the unlawful, costly and ineffective Rwanda plan”, he warned.
Katie Morrison, chief executive at charity Safe Passage, said: “It’s extremely disappointing that this Government is still refusing to open safe routes for refugees now. The Government’s plan is totally misguided. Without safe routes, more people will have no choice but to take dangerous journeys across the Channel in the hands of smugglers.
“If this Government is truly serious about providing safe routes for those in need, then it needs to move beyond meaningless reports and actually open them.”
Olivia Field, director of policy and advocacy for the British Red Cross, said safe routes were “essential if we truly want to stop people having to take dangerous journeys to the UK, after they flee their homes and search for a place of sanctuary” because for the vast majority of asylum seekers there are “simply no safe routes open to them”.
She also reiterated calls for a humanitarian visa scheme so people can apply for asylum from outside the UK.
“Until we have this, we will continue to see people risk their lives in search of safety,” she added.
The Government instead plans to introduce a cap on the number of people it provides sanctuary to each year from 2025.
Proposals are expected to be put before Parliament by the summer after a report on a consultation with councils to establish their capacity for housing and providing services to refugees is published in the spring.
Asked why no new safe and legal routes had been announced in the report, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman told reporters the UK had “significant numbers of current routes already” but this would be kept “under review”.
Pointing to Government figures showing over half a million people had been offered sanctuary in the UK since 2015, he said: “While the compassion of the UK is clearly unlimited, our capacity is not”.
Right wing Tory MPs are gearing up for a parliamentary battle after warning the Prime Minister his Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill will not work unless it is significantly beefed up. Dozens are backing amendments to the proposed legislation aimed at effectively ignoring international law and to severely limit individual migrants’ ability to resist being put on a flight to Kigali.
Meanwhile former justice secretary Robert Buckland, part of One Nation group of centrist Tories, put forward a bid to remove clauses which declare Rwanda a safe country, disapply human rights laws and force courts to some disregard European Court of Human Rights rulings ahead of the Bill being scrutinised again by MPs on Tuesday and Wednesday.