First flight to Rwanda grounded after lawyers make successful emergency application
Boris Johnson’s plan to send an inaugural flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda has been abandoned after a dramatic 11th-hour ruling by the European court of human rights.
Up to seven people who had come to the UK seeking refuge had been expected to be removed to the east African country an hour and a half before the flight was due to take off.
A union challenging the government’s controversial policy of deporting people to Rwanda said it hopes it can win an appeal to stop the first flight taking off this week.
“Appalling”
A High Court ruling on 10 June paved the way for a flight to the east African country to go ahead on 14 June. But an appeal against that decision is due to be heard on 13 June. The immigration policy has come in for criticism from various groups. And there are reports that the Prince of Wales privately described the move to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as “appalling”.
The boss of the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) said the “legality of these proposals” must be tested. But he added that there’s also a need to debate “the morality and lack of humanity that the Government is demonstrating” with its approach. The PCS represents more than 80% of Border Force staff.
Up to 130 people have been notified they could be removed. And on 10 June, the court in London heard that 31 people were due on the first flight. The Home Office is also planning to schedule more flights this year. Alongside the PCS, lawyers brought the first claim against the policy on behalf of asylum seekers. Groups including Care4Calais and Detention Action are also challenging the policy on behalf of everyone affected.
On 10 June, justice Jonathan Swift ruled against granting a temporary block to the policy until a full hearing next month. But he granted the claimants permission to appeal against his decision, suggesting Court of Appeal judges would hear the case on 13 June.
Respect
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka told Sky’s Sophy Ridge On Sunday programme:
We hope we win tomorrow in the Court of Appeal to stop the flight (on Tuesday). But, of course, the legality of these proposals will only be tested out at the full court hearing in July.
We’re absolutely confident that in July, in line with what the UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) said very graphically in court, we believe these proposals will be found to be unlawful.
He said home secretary Priti Patel would not ask civil servants to carry out the policy before its legality had been tested in court if she “had any respect, not just for the desperate people who come to this country, but for the workers she employs”.
Meanwhile Northern Ireland secretary Brandon Lewis defended the government’s policy. He said it aims to “break” the “business model” of people smugglers. Asked if he was personally comfortable with the policy, he told the same programme: “Yes, I am, actually”.
The policy has drawn criticism from people including Labour MP Richard Burgon:
Whether or not the Rwanda policy is legal, it is a vile, immoral, inhumane policy.
And as Tony Benn said: "The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it."
Many Conservative politicians and other commentators are expressing their joy about the Rwanda plan decision. Let’s be clear what they are joyful about: a trade in human beings. One that transports people abroad without their consent, essentially making the UK the trafficker.
— Prof Tanja Bueltmann (@TanjaBueltmann) June 11, 2022
And members of the clergy have also voiced their concern:
I challenged a politician today, in private, and said that the policy of deporting people to Rwanda is wrong.
I was expressly told that priests should not make political statements.
If the church doesn’t challenge injustice then it facilitates it.
Asylum Aid applies for an urgent interim injunction to stop flights in challenge to Priti Patel’s offshoring policy
The Home Office’s first flight to Rwanda under the home secretary’s offshoring plan is facing a second injunction which aims to stop it from taking off.
A refugee charity, Asylum Aid, has applied for an urgent interim injunction preventing any flights from taking place, including the one scheduled on Tuesday, until after its application for a judicial review can be heard.
Several Afghans are among more than 100 migrants due to be sent to Rwanda on the first flight next week, according to campaigners seeking legal action against the policy.
Nine people who fled to the UK after the Taliban takeover have been notified by the Home Office that they could be removed to the East African nation on Tuesday, Care4Calais – one of a number of organisations taking the Government to court over the plan – said.
The group said it is also aware of around 35 Sudanese, 18 Syrians, 14 Iranians, 11 Egyptians as well as Iraqi, Pakistani, Albanian, Algerian, Chadian, Eritrean, Turkish and Vietnamese people who have been told they could be put on the inaugural flight.
The Home Office has refused to confirm the nationalities of those on board but only Rwandans are exempt from the policy, suggesting that those fleeing conflict – such as in Afghanistan and Ukraine – could be considered for removal if they are deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally under new immigration rules.
“Flawed”
Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, told the PA news agency:
The logic to this plan is flawed in many ways. Just one example is that Afghans escaping from the Taliban under our settlement scheme are protected whereas those arriving in other ways will be sent to Rwanda.
Figures published by the department last month showed people fleeing Afghanistan made up almost a quarter of the migrants crossing the Channel in the first three months of the year.
This was the most out of any nationality recorded, followed by 16% who were Iranian and 15% Iraqi – which both typically outrank Afghans in the numbers.
The rise prompted concerns from campaigners that the Government’s resettlement scheme designed to help Afghans seek sanctuary in the UK in the wake of the Taliban takeover is failing and raised questions over whether Afghans could face being sent to Rwanda.
Anyone who the department considers has taken a dangerous, unnecessary or illegal journey to the UK would meet the criteria for removal to Rwanda, apart from lone migrant children who are exempt.
While officials are likely to focus on removing single adults in the initial phases of the scheme, there is the prospect families with children could be considered for removal under the policy.
Legal challenges
The charity has joined the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) and Detention Action in seeking a judicial review of the policy – which they have described as “unlawful” – in the High Court, with a hearing due on Friday.
Lawyers for almost 100 migrants have already submitted legal challenges asking to stay in the UK, the charity said, with the remaining 31 lined up for the flight anticipated to follow suit this week.
The wave of legal action has cast doubt on whether the flight will be able to go ahead as planned.
But the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said:
We remain confident in our position, should the legal challenges require us going to the courts we will argue our case. It’s true to say the first flight is due for next week so we have that ready to go.
So far this year 10,020 migrants have crossed the Channel to the UK, analysis of Government figures by the PA news agency shows.
No crossings were recorded on Wednesday, according to the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Actress Dame Emma Thompson, who has an adopted son from Rwanda, has described the scheme as “eye-wateringly mad and callous” in an interview with Sky News’ Beth Rigby, adding that the Government’s approach “does not represent the soul of this country”.
Former minister Jesse Norman, who withdrew his longstanding support of Boris Johnson ahead of the confidence vote earlier this week, branded the policy:
ugly, likely to be counterproductive and doubtful of legality.
Meanwhile a Twitter account entitled “Our Home Office”, purporting to be run by staff in the department, has been set up expressing its support for refugees amid reports that some civil servants have opposed the plan.
But it is understood senior Home Office officials are not aware of any staff who have refused to work on the policy.
Priti Patel’s planed date for sending refugees to Rwanda is creeping closer. The Home Office has said people will be sent to Rwanda from 14 June. Under the plan, the Home Office will send people who aren’t granted asylum in the UK to Rwanda for processing and relocation.
Campaigners, rights groups, and politicians have called the plans “ill-conceived, inhumane and evil.”
However, protests and legal challenges stand in the way of the government’s plans. Before we take a look at those, though, there have been a few recent developments.
Opposition
The deportation plan has already been delayed. It was supposed to go ahead in May, but the government blamed legal challenges for the setback. In fact, Priti Patel mentioned “specialist lawyers” and Boris Johnson blamed “liberal lawyers” as the reasons behind the delay. The chair of the Bar Council, Mark Fenhalls QC, said:
Attacks on men and women for simply doing their jobs are irresponsible and undermine the rule of law.
contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.
The challenges from lawyers come as people who face the threat of deportation to Rwanda have been on hunger strike. The Guardian reported:
At least 17 people from Syria, Egypt and Sudan, who are being held at the Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick airport, began the protest when they were told they would be sent to Rwanda on 14 June as part of a controversial new scheme.
Incredibly, the Guardian also claimed to have seen a letter which tells the hunger strikers that if they don’t eat they’ll be deported sooner. The letter read:
Your refusal of food and/or fluids will not necessarily lead to your removal directions being deferred. In the interests of your health and safety we may prioritise your removal from detention and the UK.
Meanwhile, the BBC saw a letter of deportation notice which told the asylum seeker they could not appeal the decision.
Importantly, immigration lawyer Steven Galliver-Andrew said:
The law which allows the government to do this doesn’t appear to come into force until the 28th of June 2022.
What they are doing can and will be challenged – and they know and expect that.
It remains to be seen if the latest deadline will be one the government can stick to.
Legal challenges
However, this isn’t to say that the government can simply wait until 28 June and then carry on with its deportation plan. There are a number of legal challenges that are looking to stop them altogether.
Charity Freedom from Torture is preparing to bring a legal challenge against the plans to send people to Rwanda. Its crowdfunder for legal costs says:
Treating people who are seeking safety from torture and war as if they’re a problem to be got rid of is not only deeply immoral, but likely unlawful.
The charity sent a letter to the Home Office explaining why it was looking into legal action. The charity’s solicitor Carolin Ott said:
Our client further considers the policy constitutes a breach of the Home Secretary’s duty not to induce breaches of human rights by her agents and is unlawful because it is contrary to the Refugee Convention.
A policy which raises such a ‘shopping list’ of potential illegality and poses such a risk to individuals should plainly not be enforced until its lawfulness has been properly tested.
Meanwhile, campaigners from Detention Action has teamed up with charity Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union. The union represents Home Office staff who would have to carry out the proposed plan. They’ve also sent a pre-action letter to the government warning them about an incoming legal challenge. They say they’re challenging:
the Home Secretary’s failure to disclose the criteria dictating which people seeking asylum will be transferred by force to East Africa and which will remain in the UK.
states that the home secretary’s proposals run contrary to international law and the UN refugee convention, as well as breaching British data protection law.
Protest
While the legal challenges are happening, there’s also a protest planned. There’s going to be a protest at the Rwanda High Commission in London on Wednesday 8 June from 4pm to 7pm. Movement for Justice are calling for people to join them and make their support for asylum seekers clear:
The government’s deportation plans have received widespread opposition from lawyers, human rights activists, and everyday people who can see these plans for what they are: inhumane and illegal.
The Home Office is allegedly trying to deport unaccompanied minors to Rwanda.
Charities claim there’s a “worrying pattern” of the government classing asylum seekers younger than 18 as adults.
The refugee charity Care4Calais is currently engaged in an age dispute with the Home Office over two teenage boys. The Home Office has issued the boys notices of removal.
The boys say they’re 16. But the Home Office – after undertaking age assessments – claim they’re 23 and 26 respectively.
Our lawyers will fight for that. One 16 year old saw his brother killed in front of him when his village was raided in Sudan. He escaped and went back later to find the whole village gone.
In a statement, charity Care4Calais pledged to use its lawyers to challenge the notices. It said:
One (of the) 16-year-old (boys) saw his brother killed in front of him when his village was raided in Sudan. He escaped and went back later to find the whole village gone.
Anti-trafficking charity Love146 UK similarly expressed alarm over the government’s age assessment system for asylum seekers.
Campaigns manager Daniel Sohege told the Guardian the charity is seeing children “as young as 14 being incorrectly age-assessed as 23”.
He added:
The number of children we have seen who have just had 1999 put down as their date of birth when they are clearly under 18 is highly concerning, and putting young people at risk.
Lauren Starkey, a social worker for the charity, told the newspaper:
It is not within the realm of possibility that anyone, especially someone trained in child protection, could look at the children we have seen and believe they are in their 20s.
Disregard for human rights and rule of law
The PA news agency has asked the Home Office for comment over the charities’ remarks.
The Home Office claims it won’t remove any person from the UK if it’s “unsafe or inappropriate” to do so. And it denied that unaccompanied minors will be among those sent to Rwanda as part of the government’s potentially illegal scheme to process migrants offshore.
Earlier this week, Home Secretary Priti Patel said she’s “absolutely determined” that the UK will send migrants to Rwanda. That’s despite the prospect of legal challenges from human rights groups.
The Home Office has begun formally notifying migrants of their removal to Rwanda. And the first deportation flight is expected to depart on 14 June.
The government described the move as the “final administrative step” in its partnership with the east African nation. It will see the government permanently shipping off people it deems to have entered the UK ‘illegally’.
Nearly 10,000 refugees have arrived in the UK so far this year after crossing the English Channel in small boats (Gareth Fuller/PA)
Effective deportation
Court action from human rights groups could hold up removals. But Patel said she is “resolute” about delivering the scheme “for the British public”. She also claims that “it’s exactly what the British people want.”
The policy will see asylum seekers deemed to have entered the UK by illegal means sent to Rwanda. Their asylum claims will be processed for residence in Rwanda, not the UK. If successful, they will be granted asylum or given refugee status in the country.
Those with failed bids will face deportation to the home countries from which they fled.
Bereaved relatives of the Grenfell Tower blaze have said they are “enraged” by Government plans to keep the controversial “stay put” policy instead of adopting an inquiry recommendation.
Grenfell United has criticised new Home Office papers which outline its reasons for retaining the policy – meaning that residents of most buildings should wait for rescue services rather than leaving in the event of a fire.
This goes against a recommendation from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry – published in October 2019 – which advises the Government to place a legal obligation on building owners to outline Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for residents in the event of a fire.
Putting disabled people at risk
Grenfell United, which represents people affected by the 2017 tragedy, described the response as “a disgrace” for putting disabled people at risk.
The group said:
We are enraged at the Government, whose sole focus continues to be profit and not public safety.
We’ve fought for years to create a legacy for our 72 loved ones, and to prevent another Grenfell.
But five years on, the Government has reverted back to the same policy in place before Grenfell.
This policy resulted in 41% of those living with disabilities dying at Grenfell.
It left them with no personal evacuation plan and no means of escape.
They didn’t stand a chance. This report is a disgrace.
Disabled people have the right to leave their homes safely.
The group concluded:
The Government must implement the recommendation from the Phase 1 report of the Grenfell Inquiry and ensure personal evacuation plans for disabled residents.
In a consultation document published on Wednesday, the Home Office said it believed the cost of adopting the PEEPs policy would not be “proportionate” and that it would not be “practical” or “safe” to implement.
The department said the “stay put” policy is in place for buildings which are “designed to give appropriate protection” from fire so it is “generally safer” for residents to wait for emergency services to rescue them.
It said this knowledge, combined with safety reforms in the Building Safety Bill means “it would not be proportionate to mandate” the inquiry’s recommendation.
Fire safety
London Fire Brigade (LFB) Commissioner Andy Roe described PEEPs as a “key recommendation” from the inquiry and urged the Government to prioritise it.
He said:
It’s vitally important that people feel safe in their own homes and have certainty about how to leave their building in the event of a fire or other emergency.
Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) were a key recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and we want to work with Government, communities and other partners to make progress on evacuation plans.
Roe added it is “extremely concerning” that more than 1,000 residential buildings in the capital still have serious fire safety failings – and warned rogue property owners LFB will crack down on them using powers granted in the Fire Safety Act 2021, which came into force this week.
He welcomed other parts of the consultation which adopt several of the inquiry’s other recommendations, including transferring fire governance to an elected individual who will oversee chief fire officers.
The Home Office also said it will “improve the professionalism of the fire and rescue service through modern workforce practices” and “potentially” establish a College of Fire and Rescue.
Grenfell United also tweeted:
THREAD 1/5 For five years we’ve had to endure Government’s games. We’ve been forced to hold them to account to create a legacy of meaningful change for our loved ones. To prevent another Grenfell.
This decision of Government not to implement evidence based, life saving recommendations is beneath contempt. It is a betrayal of the bereaved and survivors who looked to this Inquiry to deliver meaningful change and prevent future deaths. #Grenfellhttps://t.co/AOj0sLm1OF
Rights organisations say refugees going into hiding as Home Office admits LGBTQ+ people could face persecution in African country
Ministers’ threats to send unauthorised migrants to Rwanda are having a detrimental impact on the physical and psychological health of people seeking asylum, according to two major refugee charities.
The British Red Cross and the Refugee Council, which worked with nearly 44,000 people in the asylum process, warn that they are disappearing from hotels and are reluctant to claim support for fear of deportation, detention and other harsh measures.
A Rwandan asylum seeker who contacted the Red Cross in south-east England fearing he could be sent back to the country. He disclosed that he would be in hiding and refraining from accessing support so he is not identified by the authorities.
An Afghan man living in temporary accommodation in the east Midlands who disclosed that he had gone into hiding, fearing that he would be detained and sent to Rwanda. He said that many of his friends were in the same situation and planned to go underground.
An asylum seeker from Ethiopia based in the West Midlands said that he feels anxious about the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act and disclosed he had left his accommodation out of fear that he will be sent to Rwanda.
An Afghan asylum seeker also based in the West Midlands who said he feels he is a second-class refugee as he is not eligible for recent schemes designed to support Ukrainians.
Immigration officers got more than they bargained for in Scotland last night. Ordinary citizens managed to beat Tory immigration policy after an Edinburgh raid was spotted early and attracted a large group of protesters. Eventually, the enforcement officers were rescued by local police.
Campaigners spotted the raid was underway on social media just before 6pm on 5th May:
Immigration officers spotted at Nicolson Square near Beirut – please go and see what help can be offered – some general advice on filming and gathering evidence here pic.twitter.com/8e0dUMsO2X
— Edinburgh Anti-Raids (@Antiraids_Ed) May 5, 2022
Footage shows the officers being booed as they exit the building they had raided:
Here’s the moment Home office staff left the property on Marshall Street in Edinburgh where they were attempting to detain residents.
”Shame on you” chant the crowd that forced them to abandon their efforts.
The large group of supporters were still chanting as Edinburgh police drove the officers away – minus the people they had reportedly arrested:
Tory Home Office officials forced to abort alleged detention raid by Nicolson Square protestors in Edinburgh who blocked their van. Police Scotland remove the enforcement officers. pic.twitter.com/xRkxjhKTq0
Embarrassingly, the officers were forced to ‘de-arrest’ those they had detained, according to reports:
Home Office have been forced to DE-ARREST everyone and are preparing to leave empty handed https://t.co/Ol5PaWi1lI
— Gordon / rent controls fan account (@istreasatuatha) May 5, 2022
De-arrested
De-arresting is a complex concept. For example, under certain conditions an arrested person may be released without the arrest being recorded. A Guardian explainer has a more in-depth analysis of how de-arresting works:
According to section 30, subsection (7) and (7A) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to “de-arrest” is to allow that “a person who has been arrested under any act of law at a place other than a police station, shall be released before reaching a police station if a constable is satisfied that there are no grounds for keeping him under arrest.”
This is just the latest in a series of victories for ordinary people over the Home Office. A year ago, Glasgow activists pulled off a similar feat. Protesters physically blocked the immigration van from taking people away. Emotional scenes ensued as the released men thanked the crowd:
These raids are another symptom of the hostile environment in the UK, but residents of cities like Glasgow and Edinburgh are showing us what real solidarity looks like.
Let’s hope we see more of it across the country. Because it would wipe the smug smirk off Priti Patel’s face. More importantly, it’s the right thing to do.
As Channel crossings pick up, asylum seekers seem undeterred by plan to deport people to east Africa
Legal challenges to the policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda could be a reason why the plan has not yet, as intended, started to deter unofficial Channel crossings, Downing Street has said.
After a period without significant numbers of crossings amid bad weather, several hundred of people made the journey in recent days, bringing the total to more than 7,000 so far this year. It is the first time this has happened since the passing of the nationalities and borders bill, which set out the policy framework.
As reported by The Canaryon 14 April, the government has announced plans to process and detain asylum seekers in Rwanda. In spite of questions surrounding the legality of the offshoring plan, prime minister Boris Johnson maintains that the government can implement it using existing legislation.
This comes as part of the Tories’ Nationality and Borders Bill which – if passed unamended – would empower the Home Office to revoke the British citizenship of anyone who can claim citizenship in another country.
In spite of widespread resistance to the inhumane plans, MPs voted against a House of Lords amendment that would force the government to pass any offshore detention plans through parliament at a House of Commons debate on 20 April. The bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April.
Now is the time to resist this draconian anti-refugee bill.
A racist and inhumane policy
In July 2021, the UK’s international ambassador for human rights raised concerns about Rwanda’s failure
“to conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.
Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, has questioned whether Patel’s offshore processing and detention plan complies with Britain’s human rights obligations under international law.
More than 160 charities and campaign groups have signed an open letter urging the government to u-turn on its “shamefully cruel” plan.
Meanwhile, the Guardian has reported that civil servants working in the Home Office may resist the unconscionable policy on ethical grounds.
In spite of opposition to the policy, on 20 April MPs voted 303:234 against a proposed amendment that would require MPs and Lords to approve any offshore processing and detention plans. This amendment included requirements for home secretary Priti Patel to present the details and costs of her offshore detention plans before she can enforce them.
Shocked by the vote’s outcome, Independent home affairs editor Lizzie Dearden tweeted:
Incredible scenes in the House of Commons tonight, as Conservative MPs voted against giving themselves the right to scrutinise asylum offshoring deals and see cost breakdowns before they are struck
The anti-refugee bill will return to the House of Lords on 26 April for the last time before it passes.
Contact your MP
We must resist the government’s cruel and inhumane plan to send vulnerable asylum seekers to Rwanda, a much smaller and more densely populated country than the UK. This begins by putting pressure on those in power.
Refugee rights group Safe Passage has drafted a template letter for people to put pressure on their MPs to oppose the anti-refugee bill. Ahead of the House of Commons debate, the group shared:
Today we sent a clear message to MPs before they vote today on the cruel Nationality and Borders Bill. Have you sent a letter to your MP demanding they stop plans to exile refugees to Rwanda? https://t.co/PMFZnKCs0Upic.twitter.com/rQUwZNOY5u
Alongside this, human rights organisation Detention Action shared a link to their petition against the draconian legislation:
Next week, MPs have a chance to vote down Boris Johnson & Priti Patel's cruel, ineffective & costly plan to send people seeking asylum – including #refugees – permanently to #Rwanda. You can take action in 2 ways, right now: 1) https://t.co/YKdaLdojyp 2)https://t.co/q2NZTo5AxR
Grassroots groups continue to do fantastic work supporting refugees and asylum seekers, and organising against the government’s anti-refugee legislation.
Detention Action directly supports those in detention, while also campaigning for policy and legislative change:
The Anti-Refugee Bill is back in front of MPs TODAY. If you are against it, please urgently write to your MP and ask them to stand against Rwanda plans: https://t.co/ZhIqObWXcKpic.twitter.com/vaGmwAu9CB
— Freedom from Torture (@FreefromTorture) April 18, 2022
And SOAS Detainee Support is a grassroots abolitionist group working in solidarity with detained people in the UK to resist imprisonment and deportation:
Today we gathered outside the Home Office to say NO to offshoring – Abolish all detention! pic.twitter.com/iE7IzjkKDY
Protest against the Government's shameful asylum plans.
JOIN THE PROTEST AGAINST THE ANTI REFUGEE LAWS and OFF SHORING to RWANDA “NOT IN OUR NAME” SATURDAY 23 APRIL 12midday to 1pm the fountains opposite Bristol Hippodrome
People can keep an eye on Collective Action London‘s page for the latest updates on upcoming protests in other locations this weekend.
Now is the time to resist Britain’s outsourcing of border control, and to demand an end to its anti-refugee policies altogether. We must use our collective power to demand that our government treats refugees and asylum seekers with the dignity and respect that every human being is entitled to.
This live blog has now closed, you can read more on the UK’s new asylum system plans here
Simon Hart, the Welsh secretary, made a rare appearance on the morning broadcast round earlier today. He said the plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda would mark a “humane step forward”. He told Sky News:
We have to deal with this problem. We have a very good relationship with Rwanda: it’s an up-and-coming economy, it has got a very good record with migrants in this particular issue.
And it’s an arrangement which I think suits both countries very well and provides the best opportunities for economic migrants, for those who have been in the forefront of this particular appalling problem for so long now.
We’ve put forward proposals to make it more difficult for smuggler gangs to advertise online on social media, which is partly how they do it.
We think there should be safe and legal routes that people need for family reunions and so on, so that they don’t have to arrive through these illegal routes in order to make their asylum claims.
Secret, blanket policy to take mobiles and extract data from them judged unlawful on several fronts
The Home Office operated an unlawful, secret, blanket policy to seize almost 2,000 mobile phones from asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats and then downloaded data from these phones, the high court has ruled.
The court found that the policy was unlawful on multiple fronts and breached the asylum seekers’ human rights. The judges ruled that there was no parliamentary authority for seizures and data extractions and that the legal power that Home Office officials thought they could use was the wrong one.
Ministers are failing to protect people trafficked to Britain as modern slaves, the government’s own expert has said.
Sara Thornton, the UK’s independent anti-slavery commissioner, said the law needed changing so those established as victims of traffickers would be more likely to be granted protection and allowed to stay in the UK.
A freedom of information (FOI) response has shown that the Home Office spent £209.3m on the Prevent programme between 2010 and 2021. However, there’s much more that lurks behind this figure.
That’s exactly why Prevent Watch has taken up its own review. You can read its full report here. It includes analysis of why and how Prevent is Islamophobic, along with a number of case studies from parents, children, and others whom Prevent has targeted.
How did Prevent Watch get these numbers?
Prevent Watch shared its FOI request that it sent to the Home Office with The Canary.Among other things, it asked for a breakdown of Prevent’s budget. The Home Office gave the following information:
Prevent Watch submitted 273 FOI requests while doing research for the People’s Review of Prevent. Dr Layla Aitlhadj, director of Prevent Watch, told The Canary:
The People’s Review of Prevent sent FOIs to almost 300 local authorities and the majority of them claimed they did not hold information on whether they are a Priority Prevent Area
Aitlhadj said this “seems very disingenuous”, because:
those 44 who were [a Priority Prevent Area] would have received additional Prevent funding as part of their budget. This tactic of sending people on wild goose chases to get FOIs is not unique when other researchers have tried to gain some transparency about Prevent – be it funding or operational aspects.
As The Canary has nowcoveredrepeatedly, it can be very difficult to get much information from the FOI process. Aitlhadj said “the FOI programme is only fit for purpose if the authorities are made accountable when they fail to deliver”. She added:
and even where complaints are made to the ICO this does not seem to serve as a deterrent for this opaque behaviour.
Where has all this money gone?
As the People’s Review of Prevent shows, there are many cases where people have been referred to Prevent only to feel targeted, isolated, and under suspicion.
The report includes a number of cases of people referred to Prevent. These include:
An Imam who gave a speech about white supremacy and Martin Luther King.
A 26-year-old mum who put together aid packages for Syrian refugees.
A mum who took her 8-year-old child to a Palestine protest.
A woman discussing her religious beliefs with her psychiatrist.
A 12-year-old boy questioned without a parent or guardian present.
Aitlhadj explains that in the cases where referrals lead to proposed action:
they are recommending some kind of intervention be it social or medical that could have actually been sought directly without the need for the securitised middle man
She goes on to emphasise how funding for social and health services gets diverted to Prevent. This ultimately causes further harm to the communities that are under scrutiny:
Prevent causes genuine support that could be provided to go around in a huge loop that creates jobs for those pushing Prevent but means that the end service required is short of all the cash it could have had if the unnecessary middle steps were omitted.
As the People’s Review of Prevent argues, Prevent targets Muslims and positions us as the enemies within. Children, vulnerable people, and many others are seen as suspicious. As the FOI shows, this takes a huge amount of public money. That’s money which could otherwise be spent on welfare, social care, education, health, and community projects.
Aitlhadj goes on to say:
The millions injected into Prevent started when the austerity measures also started. Genuine community projects eventually had their money dependent on their engagement with Prevent. The money needs to be pumped back into communities but without the lens of security or any strings attached.
Pre-crime
Yet another factor that emerges in this review of Prevent is the issue of pre-crime. As The Canary’s previous work shows, pre-crime is sometimes known as predictive policing. It often uses data to predict areas where crime may occur in order to redirect police energies.
The People’s Review of Prevent makes it clear that Prevent is firmly within the category of pre-crime:
We need to reiterate that Prevent operates in the pre-crime space, where no offences have been committed and where the information gathered is, at best, an indication of a potential risk of an offence being committed at some considerable point in the future.
At its core, Prevent is about targeting Muslims who, in the future, may or may not commit crimes. Aitlhadj told The Canary:
Pre-crime has been conflated with actual policing and even with preventative policing and it is essential that awareness is raised to demonstrate that pre-crime is an arena of absolutely no crime intended or even in the making nor is it based on correlations or any real science.
This, according to Aitlhadj, has serious consequences for the people and communities targeted by Prevent:
As policing strategies more generally move towards using data and algorithms to make assumptions, it is worrying that there is a huge influx of data, particularly of children’s data that could potentially be used in such a manner… what is happening to the information gathered and retained of the thousands of children referred every year to Prevent who, by Prevent’s own logic, are not even suspected criminals? Why is it retained on several databases controlled by police and how is it being used?
In other words, it’s crucial to understand Prevent as pre-crime precisely because the data it gathers, often on children, is self-sustaining. Prevent exists to work out which Muslims to be suspicious of – it has never been a question for the government that suspicion of Muslims is necessary – and it exists in order to collect information on Muslims. Then, regardless of whether referrals actually stop any crimes, they provide themselves with their own data to justify the continued existence of Prevent. In other words, Prevent is a surveillance tool more than it is a security tool.
National security
Aitlhadj also told The Canary that the issue of national security is one of mistrust:
There is deep mistrust towards the Government when it comes to matters of national security and this is not based on paranoia. It is based on past experience and on their past reviews, from race to security, they have failed to deliver independent scrutiny.
It remains to be seen how, if at all, the Shawcross review will justify the huge amounts of money spent on Prevent. What is known, however, is that rights organisations from Amnesty International to Liberty have come together to boycott the Shawcross review. Many more Muslims have spoken out about the damage Prevent has done to our communities.
All the more reason to take the conclusions of the People’s Review of Prevent with the vital insight it provides: a government that won’t spend money helping people is happy to waste it on surveilling children.
On 28 February, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will return to the House of Commons. The bill suffered a series of defeats in the lords. But those defeats were never going to be enough to kill the bill. And indications from the Home Office now confirm that home secretary Priti Patel will try and reinstate some of the provisions dismissed in the upper house.
So it’s now time to take to the streets again and ramp up our protests against this racist and draconian piece of legislation.
Don’t believe the hype
As The Canary previously reported, it was always important not to get too excited about the defeats inflicted to the bill by the lords. Yes, the lords voted against amendments that would have introduced a raft of draconian protest offences, such as locking on. And these amendments, due to the fact they were introduced in the lords, cannot be re-added to the bill.
The lords also voted against the provision for criminalising protests that are too noisy. But as this was in the original bill, it can just be added back in. Now, according to the Guardian, ministers are to “continue fighting” for the protest powers.
Additionally, the lords didn’t amend the massive watering down of the threshold for prosecution for breaching conditions imposed on a protest. This key change in the wording of the 1986 Public Order Act means that a person commits an offence if they “ought to know” the conditions imposed by the police. In other words, you could be convicted of breaching a condition even if you didn’t know they’d been imposed. Currently, it has to be shown that a person knew the conditions were in force.
Many other protest provisions, such as ten-year sentences for damaging a statue or ten years in jail for actions that cause “serious annoyance”, were also left unchanged.
Racist and draconian
Even if all the protest amendments had been stripped from the bill, it would still be a racist and draconian piece of legislation. And it’s essential that we all remember that the bill isn’t just about protest.
As Eliza Egret previously wrote for The Canary in the wake of the lords defeats:
The bill will still criminalise the way of life for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by making trespass with the intention to reside in or near a vehicle criminal offence. It will allow the police to arrest travellers, and/or confiscate their caravans or vans, which are literally their homes.
And as Egret points out, there’s a whole raft of other worrying proposals:
The bill will change the minimum age of receiving a life sentence in prison from 21 years old to 18 years old, locking up young offenders who are usually from the most working class and difficult backgrounds. On top of this, the bill will introduce secure schools, which the government describes as a “planned new form of youth custody”. Secure schools will, essentially, be prisons for children aged from 12 to 18 years of age, and they will be run by charities: yet more money being funnelled into the private sector.
To the streets…again!
When the bill was first introduced, it led to a wave of protests across the country, including the uprisings in Bristol. It’s time to ramp up that pressure again. We need to be noisy, disruptive, and seriously annoying. We need to be ungovernable.
We didn’t win our rights by asking nicely, and we’re certainly not going to keep them unless we make a hell of a fuss. The time for action is now. See you on the streets!
Officials often underestimate the dangers faced by failed asylum seekers who are forcibly sent home, writes Jackie Fearnley
Therecent Human Rights Watch report on the harm done to Cameroonian asylum seekers, both while they were trying to make their claims in the US and when repatriated in a blaze of publicity, should be required reading for all asylum decision-makers (African migrants deported in Trump era suffered abuse on return, 10 February).
From my experience of helping Cameroonian torture survivors over the past 14 years, I have noted that Home Office decision-makers, and many judges, can fatally underestimate the degree of risk attached to the forcible return process, particularly as failed asylum seekers are viewed as having brought the country into disrepute and can be punished with imprisonment.
The government promised to learn from Windrush, but citizens trafficked to Syria by Islamic State have also been abandoned
The government’s proposed new powers to strip people of their citizenship without notice rang alarm bells in communities across Britain. Despite being the first Muslim woman in our country’s history to serve in the cabinet, my family and I could be deprived of our citizenship without being told about it, and cast out of our home country if the Home Office believed this would be conducive to the public good. Two in five people from ethnic minority backgrounds could be at risk.
Successive British governments have torn down the basic belief that all British citizens in this country are and should be equal. The consequences of this government’s unprecedentedly broad use of citizenship-stripping powers have become even more clear to me after hearing directly from the families of British citizens detained in north-east Syria.
Kwasi Kwarteng has suggested the prime minister was not counting rates of fraud when he falsely claimed in the Commons that crime had fallen under his leadership.
The business secretary said Boris Johnson was referring to “personal injury and crime in relation to individuals” when he told MPs “we have been cutting crime by 14%”.
It followed a Home Office press release which said latest data showed “crime continues to fall under this Government”. The press release quoted home secretary Priti Patel as saying it demonstrated the government’s approach “is working”.
Misleading
But the government has since been placed under investigation by the UK Statistics Authority. It comes after they received complaints about the claim.
Despite a fall in most crimes during coronavirus (Covid-19) lockdowns, some are now reaching or exceeding pre-pandemic levels. Moreover, rises in some offences like fraud have offset reductions seen elsewhere, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The figures also showed that police recorded the highest number of rapes and sexual offences in a 12-month period. Meanwhile separate Home Office data detailed how the proportion of suspects being taken to court has fallen to a new record low. And it remains the lowest for rape cases.
UK Statistics Authority boss David Norgrove said the government had presented crime figures in a “misleading way”. He said this in a letter to Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson who raised the issue.
But appearing on the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme, Kwarteng said Johnson:
was referring to personal injury and crime in relation to individuals.
The point the Prime Minister was making is that crime that people experience in their day-to-day lives… in terms of burglary, in terms of physical injury, has gone down and that’s absolutely right.
Following the interview, Labour MP and chairman of the Commons Committee on Standards Chris Bryant tweeted:
I can understand why Tories don’t want people to think fraud counts as crime.
Total crime didn’t fall, but quite the opposite
It comes after the minister who was responsible for tackling fraud, lord Theodore Agnew, dramatically quit the government over the “schoolboy” handling of fraudulent Covid-19 business loans.
In the letter to Carmichael, Norgrove said:
I agree that Office for National Statistics (ONS) measures of crime must be used accurately, and not misrepresented.
In this case, the Home Office news release presented the latest figures in a misleading way.
Likewise, the Prime Minister referred to a 14% reduction in crime, which is the change between the year ending September 2019 and the year ending September 2021. This figure also excludes fraud and computer misuse, though the Prime Minister did not make that clear.
If fraud and computer misuse are counted in total crime as they should be, total crime in fact increased by 14% between the year ending September 2019 and the year ending September 2021.
We have written to the Home Office and to the offices of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary to draw their attention to this exchange.
The watchdog works to “promote and safeguard official statistics to serve the public good”. This includes “regulating the quality and publicly challenging the misuse of statistics”.
It can intervene if it considers a politician or government department has misused or misrepresented figures and has not adhered to a code of practice.
The prime minister seems temperamentally unsuited the demands of his own increasingly authoritarian agenda
“Creeping authoritarianism” is the wolf of the left, and we cry it all the time: I remember, almost nostalgically, thinking David Cameron was a creeping authoritarian for outsourcing punitive benefits initiatives to private companies; and that Theresa May was one when she earned the dubious accolade of politician least likely to answer the question in a broadcast interview. However, there is no ignoring or denying the vastly more anti-democratic manoeuvres of Boris Johnson’s government.
The elections bill, currently in the Lords, features mandatory photo ID, which is well known to disfranchise younger and lower-income voters. It poses a direct threat to the reach and independence of the Electoral Commission, has serious implications for who can and cannot campaign at election time, and extends the perverse first-past-the-post voting system to the election of mayors and police commissioners. Beyond the explicit restriction of democracy, there is no plausible rationale for the bill; and unsettlingly, very little attempt has been made to produce one.
Refugees housed in an ageing military barracks say they feel like they are in a “prison” at risk of coronavirus despite the Home Office claiming it has made improvements to the controversial site.
People living in Napier Barracks in Kent – many of whom risked death in the English Channel to get to the UK – sleep in 20-bed dormitories separated by curtains.
The military site in Folkestone dates back more than 130 years and its use to house refugees has been fiercely criticised by campaigners, particularly following a major outbreak of coronavirus last year.
As the Home Office prepares to use another military base in nearby Manston to process asylum seekers, the PA news agency heard from a number of Napier residents who spoke of poor conditions and safety fears.
Clare Moseley, founder of Care4Calais, says the accommodation is ‘far from ideal’ (PA)
“We are always at risk”
One man who has lived at the barracks for six weeks said:
I can tell you Napier camp it’s a very bad place for living.
You don’t have a room alone, you can’t go outside for a long time. It’s very bad because you think it is a prison.
He said he does not feel safe from Covid-19 at the barracks, adding:
Every time, there are three or four buildings in the camp in quarantine.
Another who had been there for five weeks said the site is old and unclean.
He added:
It is not safe because we have no doors – we are always at risk.
One man who arrived at Napier Barracks in the past two weeks said staff and security were friendly and polite. But he added that bathrooms are “dirty” and said he does not feel safe in relation to Covid-19.
Others spoke about difficulty sleeping in the busy dormitories.
People coming to the UK for safety deserve better
A Home Office spokesperson said:
We provide safe accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, including 24/7 access to healthcare.
We have made significant improvements to Napier Barracks in the last year and continue to do so, including more recreational and outdoor activities, additional coronavirus tests and reduced capacity.
Our New Plan for Immigration will overhaul the broken asylum system. We will welcome people through safe and legal routes whilst preventing abuse of the system.”
But Clare Moseley, founder of refugee charity Care4Calais, which has supported people living in Napier Barracks since it opened, said:
Institutional accommodation that is set far from local communities can never be the right place for people who have come to the UK in need of safety. It is essential that they can access healthcare, faith centres and other amenities, and integrate within society.
This article is part of a joint investigation with anti-capitalist research group Corporate Watch
Refugees in London are being housed by the Home Office in run-down, insect-infested hotels. Meanwhile, private housing providers are raking it in.
Corporate Watch spoke to an Iraqi Kurdish family who arrived in the UK in November 2020. Since then, the family – who wish to remain anonymous – have been put up by the Home Office in disgusting conditions in several hotels in London with their six children. They told Corporate Watch that – aside from the insect infestation – they have had to deal with the ceiling caving in; water pouring in from the apartment above them; insufficient food, a lack of electricity, and – when there has been power – dodgy and dangerous electrics.
Mother of the family Rojda (not her real name) told Corporate Watch:
I’m a mother of six kids, our life is very hard here, and we have no rights.
When we arrived here [in 2020] we had two rooms for all of us… all of our accommodations have been very bad
Rojda described how she often had to take the family to see another friend living in a different hotel in order to take showers because of the lack of hot water. Rojda said that it was a “shame” that despite living in a rich capital like London she didn’t even have electricity or hot water.
The adults in the family have not been given permission to work in the UK and are completely dependant on the Home Office for accommodation.
They are currently living in a hotel in just three rooms for a total of eight people. The hotel is infested with bed bugs which are causing skin irritation. They provided Corporate Watch with these shocking photos:
Skin irritation on the back of a baby’s headSkin problems caused by the insect infestationSkin irritation from insect bites in a Home Office HotelInsect bites on one of the childrenDead insects on a child’s cot
The family were temporarily moved to new accommodation after a housing officer intervened, but Rojda told us that within weeks they were forced to return to the bug-infested hotel.
Heartbreakingly, Rojda told us that the staff at the hotel had denied her son food, after he complained about the state of the family’s accomodation.
Rojda said that it’s not just her family who are suffering. She doesn’t have a common language to communicate with the other families at the hotel, but she can see that the conditions are just as bad for them
The Home Office’s slum landlords
Nearly 55,000 refugees are currently housed in the Home Office’s ‘contingency accommodation’ waiting to find out if their asylum claim will get approved. The UK’s asylum housing contracts have been wholly privatised since 2012.
The company that provides the accommodation Rojda’s family is housed in is believed to be Clearsprings Ready Homes. This company reported a massive jump in profits in its last set of accounts – to £4.5m. Its surging profits have led to a seven-fold increase in dividends to the parent company. Clearsprings handles the asylum accommodation contracts for the Home Office in the south of England.
Clearsprings also runs Napier, an ex-military barracks which is being used to house refugees in Kent in conditions described as “squalid” by lawyers of the residents.
In other parts of the UK, the Home Office has awarded contracts to Serco and Mears Group. Outsourcing giant Serco reported £180m in profits in 2019, while Mears reported over half a million worth of profits from its housing business alone.
We’ve decided not to name the Central London hotel because of fears that fascists will target the residents.
“Imagine coming to school with that”
Rojda suggested that we speak to the children’s teachers so they could tell us about the effect living in these conditions has on the wellbeing of the children and their education
The school provided a statement which says that it has had to get “more and more involved” with helping children in “temporary accommodation”, including providing support with practical things like travel and uniforms, as well as “navigating the bureaucracy”. Its statement reads:
Living in these difficult conditions obviously impacts the children. They tell us about how overcrowded it is, how noisy, and how they have trouble sleeping.
Imagine coming to school with that. They are trying to learn a new language, integrate into a new school, adapt to a new culture when at the same time they have to deal with great uncertainty about how long they will be staying for.
Passing the buck
The Canary contacted the Home Office about the conditions at the hotel. They passed the buck to Clearsprings, saying:
We are dealing with unprecedented pressures on the asylum system, but despite this we continue to ensure the accommodation provided is safe, comfortable and secure.
However, we expect high standards from all of our providers, and any asylum seekers who have problems can get in touch with Migrant Help 24/7, every day of the year.
We also contacted Clearsprings Ready Homes. A spokesperson said:
Clearsprings Ready Homes works closely with its delivery partners to ensure that safe, habitable and correctly equipped accommodation is provided. Whenever issues are raised, or defects are identified Ready Homes will undertake a full investigation and ensure that those issues are addressed.
The Home Office also said:
The Nationality and Borders Bill that we are introducing will deliver the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum system.
However – far from making the situation better for refugees – the Nationality and Borders Bill will make the situation even worse by introducing endless reviews of people’s asylum claims, which stretch out the asylum process. This means that people are reliant on Home Office accommodation for even longer. In general, the bill is designed to make claiming asylum in the UK even more difficult.
“Not an isolated experience”
Rojda’s family’s situation is not unique at all. The Home Office’s private contractors routinely provide dirty and dilapidated accommodation to those seeking asylum. Earlier this month, Clearsprings was forced to make improvements to flats it’s using to house refugees in Uxbridge after they “were found to be rife with damp, mould, water leaks and pest infestations”. Last year, six men won a high court legal challenge. The court ruled that their accommodation at the Napier Barracks in Kent – which is managed by Clearsprings – failed to meet a “minimum standard”.
We spoke to Maddie Harris, director of the Humans for Rights network. She said:
The experience of this family is utterly appalling and shows a clear disregard for their health, well-being and rights. It is also, not an isolated experience. We have spoken to hundreds of people seeking sanctuary in the UK who are accommodated in hotels throughout England and it is clear from the testimonies shared with us that there is no attention paid to upholding even the most basic of rights. People often spend well over a year in cramped, overcrowded hotels, run by private contractors who surveil their every move.
Medical care is limited
Harris continued:
Medical care is often limited or restricted by staff who refuse to assist people in registering with GP surgeries. Food is nutritionally poor and small in quantity and often lacks consideration for faith, cultural or dietary requirements. Access to solicitors and legal advice is severely lacking and little to no information is provided to people. These hotels and accommodations such as Napier Barracks, are for many experienced like quasi-detention and we have heard from numerous people that their mental health is severely effected by isolation, lack of information and complete uncertainty as to the progress of their asylum claim. These accommodations are run by private companies, who profit from and are responsible for much of this harm.
“Ultimate accountability lies with the Home Office”
Harris concluded that, although private companies are profiting from running the accommodation, the Home Office bears the final responsibility. She said:
Ultimate accountability lies with the Home Office who are responsible for these contracts and the welfare of asylum seekers in the UK, yet there is a complete lack of oversight for how these contracts are managed, resulting in untold harm to many thousands of people seeking sanctuary in the UK.
Solidarity
Refugees living in the Home Office’s slum accommodation can be found in many of our communities. These are people who are new to the UK, and they are bearing the brunt of a racist state which is colluding with ruthless private companies out to make a fast buck from the suffering of others. We need to be ready to stand in solidarity with people in the Home Office’s slum accommodation, and to struggle alongside them for better conditions.
Featured image via Alisdare Hickson/Wikimedia Commons (resized to 770×403 pixels), all other images used in this article were provided to Corporate Watch by Rojda’s family (with permission)
Security and borders minister Damian Hinds says such action would only be taken against the most dangerous people, such as terrorists, extremists and serious organised criminals
It’s been possible for over a century. It comes with a right of appeal and is only used in exceptional circumstances in a small number of cases each year. The nationality and borders bill doesn’t change any of that – it’s only about how someone is notified.
An Extinction Rebellion (XR) protest has blocked the front entrance to the Home Office building in Glasgow.
The activists locked themselves to each other and to the property’s gates from about 7am on Monday.
The protesters, from XR Scotland and XR Glasgow, are calling on the UK government “to end its hostile environment policy towards migrants”.
They said the demonstration has been organised in response to home secretary Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill passing through the House Of Commons.
The bill came after 27 people lost their lives trying to cross the English Channel in November – a journey that has resulted in 166 people being recorded as either dead or missing since 2014.
Patel’s bill – which cleared the Commons last week – seeks to curb these crossings and also change how asylum claims are processed.
A spokesperson for XR Scotland said:
The Nationality and Borders Bill must be stopped
It’s beyond cruel to criminalise people seeking asylum.
It’s state-sanctioned murder to grant immunity to border force staff if refugees die after being pushed back into French waters.
The demonstration comes after several organisations rallied together in a mass protest against the bill on Sunday in London outside 10 Downing Street.
Extinction Rebellion activists demonstrating outside Glasgow’s Home Office building in response to the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill (Extinction Rebellion)
In Glasgow, banners read: “Refugees Welcome”, “End the Hostile Environment” and “Climate Justice = Migrant Justice”.
A retired social worker who took part in the protest said:
The UK’s heartless hostile environment policy routinely denies migrants their human rights, preventing access to employment, healthcare, housing and other basic services.
The world’s richest 10% are responsible for half of global emissions compared with the poorest half emitting only 10%, yet it will be the communities least responsible that are forced to flee their homes on a scale never seen before as the climate crisis escalates.
The hostile environment must end, there can be no climate justice without migrant justice.
The protesters have locked themselves to each other and to the gates of the Home Office building in Glasgow (Extinction Rebellion)
Scotland and Wales against the bill
Ministers in Scotland and Wales jointly condemned measures in the UK government’s Nationality and Borders Bill as “barbaric” last week – as well as warning the legislation may need approval from the parliaments in Edinburgh and Cardiff.
Scottish social justice secretary Shona Robison and her Welsh counterpart Jane Hutt wrote a joint letter to Patel to demand the UK reconsiders its “hostile environment strategy” and develops “sufficient safe and legal routes” for asylum seekers.
The letter outlined that the Scottish and Welsh governments have “far-reaching concerns about the impact of the provisions” in the bill.
Robison and Hutt stated:
This legislation contains measures that will prevent migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats, including the barbaric suggestions for ‘push-back’ exercises involving enforcement officials seeking to repel small boats.
Rather than help matters, these measures will delay rescues and endanger lives.
Clause 9 in the nationality and borders bill will strike fear and uncertainty into the hearts of black and Asian Britons
At first glance, Shamima Begum and I don’t have much in common. She fled Britain when she was a schoolgirl to join Islamic State. I came to the UK from Sri Lanka in 2005 and qualified here as a public and human rights lawyer. I became a British citizen in 2015.
Begum was born in the UK as a British citizen on the basis of her parents’ immigration status. She was stripped of her citizenship using a controversial power introduced after the 2005 London bombings, which allows the government to remove British citizenship from dual nationals if doing so is “conducive to the public good”. The use of this power increased from 2010 and further increased in 2014.
Appeal Court to hear cases of individuals imprisoned on smuggling charges
The UK government is facing a major legal challenge against its policy of prosecuting asylum seekers who steer boats across the Channel under smuggling laws.
Since the start of 2020, Immigration Enforcement has brought 67 successful prosecutions related to piloting small boats. But after court challenges earlier in the year, the Crown Prosecution Service issued new guidance advising that passengers – even those who take a turn steering – are potentially vulnerable asylum seekers who should not be prosecuted.
While UK headlines were concerned with prime minister Boris Johnson’s 2020 Christmas party, home secretary Priti Patel’s controversial nationality and borders bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons on 8 December. International and human rights lawyers have called the legality of the draconian legislation into question. MPs and campaigners took to Twitter to speak out against the bill, labelling it racist and inhumane.
A Tory majority in parliament
Announcing the results of the Commons vote, Coventry South MP Zarah Sultana tweeted:
I just voted on Priti Patel's Nationality and Borders Bill.
It's an attack on refugee rights, criminalising boats rescuing people at sea and violating our 70-year commitment to the Refugee Convention.
I voted against it, but disgracefully Conservative MPs voted it through.
Indeed, 298 MPs voted in support of the controversial bill, while only 231 voted against it. This gave the government a 67 vote majority. Sharing the devastating news, Poplar and Limehouse MP Apsana Begum – who had tabled an amendment to the draconian bill – said:
The bill will allow the home secretary to remove a person’s citizenship without warning. Analysis by the New Statesman found that under the new legislation, two in five racially minoritised Britons could become eligible to be deprived of their citizen status without warning. This is compared to just one in 20 people from a white background. According to Institute of Race Relations vice-chair Francis Weber:
People with ethnic minority heritage become, effectively, sort of second-class citizens.
Linking this to the government’s longstanding ‘hostile environment’, Black Lives Matter UK tweeted:
@pritipatel's Nationality and Borders bill will allow the home secretary to strip a person of their citizenship without informing them. Almost half of ethnic minorities would be impacted by this, with 6 million falling under new powers
Lamenting the limited coverage of the legislation which could impact the lives of countless racially minoritised Britons, Mish Rahman tweeted:
While ppl are focused on the video of the govt laughing at us a year ago and a Downing Street Party – the government, with the minimum of media coverage are getting the Nationality & Borders bill passed which will allow them to strip ppl like me of my citizenship without notice
The bill will also empower the home secretary to remove the citizenship of anyone who also has citizenship in another country. This has the potential to continue rendering them stateless. Highlighting the unprecedented case of Shamima Begum, journalist Ash Sarkar said:
People scoffed when we said stripping Shamima Begum of her citizenship created a dangerous precedent, and now look: the Nationality and Borders Bill passed last night creates second-class citizens out of millions of Britain’s dual nationals.
Ahead of the Commons vote, a Lords committee questioned the legality of the home secretary’s bill. Peers raised particular concerns about Patel’s plan to make border force officials push boats crossing the Channel back into French waters. The inhumane bill will grant immunity to border force staff if people die in these dangerous operations, while criminalising anyone trying to help drowning refugees and asylum seekers.
The Insider news fellow Bethany Dawson tweeted:
Whilst most attention has been paid to Allegra Stratton and the Number 10 Christmas parties, the Nationality and Borders Bill has passed. The legislation allows for the Government to remove citizenship without warning, to turn back asylum seekers and criminalise their passage.
The United Nations Refugee Agency warns that the bill “would penalise most refugees seeking asylum in the country”. And said it could create a model that “undermines established international refugee protection rules and practices”. Due to its multiple breaches of international and human rights law, Patel’s bill will likely come up against further legal challenges.
Take a stand against the bill
Calling on opponents of the overtly racist bill to “resist by any means necessary“, campaign group Movement for Justice shared:
It IS happening, it HAS happened- now only question is what WE do to prevent devastating impact & loss of life not at some long distant point when a judge ‘might’ step in; but right NOW in our workplaces, schools, neighbourhoods – this bill must b made unworkable #StopNABB (4/4)
Highlighting the need for broad-based collective action against the draconian bill and the encroaching carceral state, Garden Court Law barrister Zehrah Hasan shared:
The violence of borders x the carceral system has long been a tool of the British imperialist project. The #BordersBill is an embodiment of that. We cannot fight for dismantling borders & saying #StopNABB without also resisting prisons, the criminal ‘justice’ system + police https://t.co/saqB5rqRCr
Indeed, from the racist immigration bill to the anti-protest policing bill, the Tories are trying to push through the most oppressive legislation we have seen in recent history. We must unite to fight the government’s populist, authoritarian, ultra-nationalistic agenda before it’s too late.
Housing survivors of torture or other serious forms of violence in barracks ‘harmful’, all-party report says
A cross-party group of parliamentarians is calling on the government to end its use of controversial barracks accommodation for people seeking asylum, in a new report published on Thursday.
The report also recommends the scrapping of government plans to expand barracks-style accommodation for up to 8,000 asylum seekers. It refers to accommodation, including Napier barracks in Kent, which is currently being used to house hundreds of asylum seekers, as “quasi-detention” due to visible security measures, surveillance, shared living quarters and isolation from the wider community.
The legality of Priti Patel’s plans to turn back migrant boats at sea has been called into question by peers including senior lawyers and a former judge.
“Concerns”
The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has written to the home secretary expressing “concerns” over the legal basis for the so-called ‘pushbacks’. The letter adds to “growing concern both in and outside Parliament” over the policy proposed in a bid to curb Channel crossings, peers said.
It comes as the Nationality and Borders Bill is being considered by MPs in the Commons. It’s at report stage for a second day before it gets a third reading. Patel insisted the plan has a “legal basis” when questioned by the committee in October. That’s despite concerns being repeatedly raised over its legality and effectiveness which prompted campaigners to threaten her with legal action.
The Home Office’s permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft previously conceded that only a “small proportion” of boats could be turned back.
The committee’s Liberal Democrat chairwoman, former solicitor baroness Sally Hamwee, said:
Statements, including from the Home Secretary, are that there is a legal basis for the policy of so-called ‘turnarounds’. We question that.
The so-called ‘turnaround’ policy would force fragile small boats crossing the Channel to turn back. It is hard to imagine a situation in which those in them would not be in increased danger or where captains would not be obliged to render assistance.
Instead, the Home Secretary has set a policy of forcing them to turn around. Even if there is a domestic legal basis, if it were actually implemented, it would almost certainly contravene the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Policing borders should be done in full accordance with the principles of national and international law, and we look forward to full engagement with our questions.
A campaigner wearing a Priti Patel mask tears up an ‘I Welcome Refugees’ placard (Victoria Jones/PA)
“Not the solution”
Labour members baroness Shami Chakrabarti, a barrister and former director of human rights group Liberty, and ex-home secretary lord David Blunkett; Conservative member and solicitor baroness Fiona Shackleton, and retired Court of Appeal judge and crossbench peer baroness Heather Hallett also sit on the committee.
Its letter asks under what powers the tactics could be used as the law stands currently. The letter calls for a response from the Home Office by 5 January. The committee said it “fully” endorses a report published last week by another group of MPs and peers which found the tactic could endanger lives and is likely to breach human rights laws.
The turnaround tactics are “not the solution” and will “do the opposite of what is required to save lives”, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said.
It described the proposed Bill as “littered” with measures which are “simply incompatible” with the UK’s international obligations.
The government’s draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill will enter the report stage in the House of Lords on Wednesday 8 December. On 2 December, the Home Office formally announced further amendments to its authoritarian bill. On 18 November, The Canary‘s Emily Apple explained that, if implemented, amendments before the House of Lords would clamp down even harder on our right to disruptive protest – the backbone of a democratic society.
The Kill the Bill coalition will be holding a celebration of our right to protest outside the Lords on 8 December.
An increasingly draconian bill
From its inception, the draconian PCSC bill has threatened to crack down on our fundamental right to protest, and target marginalised and over-policed communities. Owing to its repressive nature, the bill sparked large-scale protests nationwide.
The bill sets out a series of new offences, sentences, and draconian anti-protest measures, such as penalties of up to 10 years for damaging a statue. The case of the ‘Colston four‘ – who stand accused of toppling the statue of Edward Colston – offers a vignette into our future under the PCSC bill.
It also threatens to further expand stop and search powers (which already disproportionately impact over-policed Communities of Colour), and criminalise rough sleepers, as well as Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ nomadic way of life.
After the bill passed its final reading in the House of Commons and its second reading in the House of Lords, home secretary Priti Patel quietly added 18 pages of amendments.
Stifling disruptive protest
As reported by The Canary, proposed amendments include the introduction of a new offence called “locking on” – i.e. protesters attaching themselves to another person or object, or carrying ‘equipment’ to do so. According to the Home Office, offensive equipment could include glue. Protesters found to be “locking on” could face up to 51 weeks in prison.
This amendment specifically targets groups such as Insulate Britain which recently staged a number of roadblocks to raise public concern about the existential threat of the climate crisis. Due to their attempts to sound the alarm on environmental devastation, some of these activists are facing criminal proceedings.
On 9 November, we saw ‘Stop the Plane’ activists held in overnight custody having blocked authorities from transporting detainees to a deportation flight by locking on. While activists stalled proceedings, it became clear that a number of detainees bound for deportation had the right to remain in the UK, with another deemed unfit to fly. Moments such as this demonstrate just how essential disruptive protest is to the pursuit of justice and freedom.
Hacking away at our fundamental rights
One proposed amendment would empower police to stop and search anyone if they believe a protest may be taking place in the area. Police wouldn’t need a reasonable suspicion. According to human rights charity Liberty, offensive materials could include placards, flyers, or banners. Anyone who refuses to cooperate with officers could face up to 51 weeks imprisonment.
This amendment would further marginalise Black protesters, who already experience excessive and disproportionate stops and searches. In the meantime, the UK government can continue to unabashedly breach its human rights obligations to take action against race disparities.
Perhaps most concerning of all is that the Home Office now seeks to introduce serious disruption prevention orders. This civil order would empower police to impose restrictions on anyone who has been convicted of two or more protest-related offences. Under such orders, police could ban them from certain places, seeing certain people, or even encouraging protest online. This would effectively remove their rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
On 2 December, the Home Office announced some of these amendments which seek to ‘crack down on highly disruptive protest tactics’. As Liberty’s Jun Pang highlights, the home secretary leaves the meaning of “serious disruption” unclear and open to interpretation. This will only play into the oppressive state’s hands.
Let’s kill this authoritarian bill
The government’s attempt to push through the PCSC bill is nothing short of authoritarian. Due to the government’s sustained attempts to curtail our civil liberties, civic freedom monitoring organisation CIVICUS has added the UK to its watchlist. Additionally, the proposed Nationality and Borders bill, the Health and Care bill, updates to the Official Secrets Act, plans to introduce voter ID, and threats to overhaul the Human Rights Act are all tell-tale signs that the UK is an increasingly fascist state. We must fight in any way we can to stop the government’s tyrannical agenda.
Human rights charity Liberty is calling on anyone seeking to challenge the proposed PCSC bill to sign its petition. The petition urges home secretary Priti Patel and secretary of state for justice Dominic Raab to scrap the bill. It has 66,937 signatures at the time of writing. The next milestone the organisation is aiming to reach is 75,000 signatures.
The bill will enter the report stage in the House of Lords on Wednesday 8 December. The Kill the Bill coalition will be holding a noisy demonstration in Westminster to coincide with this:
#Killthebill at the House of Lords Wed 8th December 2021, 5-7pm to add pressure to the Lords 3rd reading and vote on the #PCSCBill. Bring candles, lights and torches for this celebration of everything protest and freedom have given us. Expect music, singing, poetry and speakers. pic.twitter.com/goPvzSHppN
The government is trying to stifle our right to challenge the advancing fascist state. If passed, the PSC bill would criminalise anyone seeking to disrupt and dismantle the increasingly unjust and unequal status quo. We must fight tooth and nail to defend our right to protest and hold this authoritarian government to account. If we let the Tories take away our fundamental rights, they could be lost forever.
Here’s the moment Home office staff left the property on Marshall Street in Edinburgh where they were attempting to detain residents. 
”Shame on you” chant the crowd that forced them to abandon their efforts.
(@safepassageuk) 
(@ScotlandXr) 
.jpg){kind=link}
