The interior minister has been accused of misleading parliament after a Supreme Court ruling revealed that unpublished parts of a controversial policy to repel migrant boats in the English Channel say the tactic will not be used against asylum seekers.
The repulsion policy was finalized in the autumn of 2021, but Priti Patel said in January this year that the expulsion of boats for migrants was “absolutely still a policy” when he testified before the Lords’ Committee on Justice and Home Affairs. She is accused of giving this evidence, even though she was aware of the unpublished policy clauses not to use deterrence against asylum seekers.
Former Shadow Chief Prosecutor Shami Chakrabarti has accused Patel of misleading parliament and called on her to apologize: repulsed into UK waters. Priti Patel must apologize and rethink large parts of his border bill before returning to the Lords. This is a shameful violation of the rule of law. “
Details of the unpublished policy came to light during a legal challenge to the repulsion plan submitted by the Union of Public and Commercial Services (PCS) and the NGOs Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom From Torture.
The interior ministry has applied to the Supreme Court for immunity in the public interest to avoid publicizing the details of the repulsion policy. This mechanism is used when sensitive issues such as organized crime, terrorism or national security are involved.
But judges said the disclosure of the policy did not “create a real risk of serious harm to the public interest”.
The government has always said that the repulsion policy will only be used when it is safe to deploy it. Restrictions on the use of tactics are outlined in the bill on nationality and borders, which is due to return to the House of Lords on April 26. However, after the policy was announced last October, ministers have not said publicly that it will not be used against asylum seekers.
A key part of the unpublished policy revealed in the Supreme Court ruling is that anyone on a boat who says they want asylum in the UK should not be pushed back, but instead escorted to the shores of the UK. Almost anyone who uses this method to reach the United Kingdom is an asylum seeker, according to the Home Office’s own data.
The decision reveals that the repulsion policy states: “If a migrant seeks asylum while in UK territorial waters, he or she must be returned to the United Kingdom for processing.
According to the Supreme Court ruling, a clause in the unpublished policy states that “the actual number of successfully intercepted migrant ships is likely to be extremely low.” It adds that one of the “acceptable results” is that no migrant ship is considered suitable for a safe turnaround during operational deployment.
Paul O’Connor, head of negotiation at PCS, said: “PCS is urging the Home Office to be transparent in these procedures. They have worked hard to keep some issues secret. This sentence left them nowhere to hide and revealed their true agenda. “
Claire Mosley, founder of Care4Calais, said: “I am shocked that this government has tried to hide the fact that refugees seeking asylum in UK waters have the right to be brought to the UK to process this request.
Tufik Hossein, director of public law at Duncan Lewis’ lawyers, who represents PCS and Care4Calais, described the decision as “deeply worrying”. “In the light of the extreme measures currently being taken and proposed to prevent the examination of asylum applications in the United Kingdom, there is a greater need than ever for transparency.
In a speech on April 14 on tackling illegal migration, the prime minister said Channel’s rejections were unlikely to be used, although the provision on tactics remains in the immigration bill.
“Clearly, there are extremely limited circumstances when you can safely do this in the English Channel,” Johnson said.
The Ministry of the Interior was contacted for comment.
Add Comment