UK joins European deal to send rejected asylum seekers to third-country hubs | Refugees
Britain and 45 other European countries have signed a deal explicitly endorsing plans to send unwanted asylum seekers to third country centres.
In the political declaration prepared by the 46 members of the Council of Europe, the body that oversees the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), it was stated that states have an “undeniable sovereign right” to control their borders.
Britain is understood to be seeking a deal with a third country, currently unnamed, similar to the Italy-Albania agreement that allowed Rome to set up detention centers in Albania.
In this agreement, the centers were initially intended for asylum seekers from countries deemed safe while their applications were being evaluated. Giorgia Meloni’s government has since used these tools to deport people whose applications have been rejected.
Countries should be free to “address and potentially deter irregular migration,” according to the seven-page document.
“New approaches envisaged by several member states include the processing of international protection requests in a third country, third country ‘return centres’ and cooperation with transit countries,” the report said.
The agreement also aims to give countries more leeway to deport people to places where they might face inhuman or degrading treatment and to limit courts’ powers to intervene.
Ministers claimed that articles 3 and 8 of the convention (the right to live free from torture and the right to a family life) were used to prevent the deportation of people who had no right to be in the UK.
“Care should be exercised in assessing whether the deportation or extradition of an individual to a non-State party would violate a state’s obligations under Article 3 of the convention,” the agreement said.
The convention has become a major point of contention between major political parties. Keir Starmer supports ECHR amendments, while the Conservatives and Reform Party have vowed to leave.
A leading immigration expert said he was not convinced a political agreement would have a significant impact on immigration cases.
Madeleine Sumption, director of the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, said: “It is not clear how much impact a political declaration would have, given that judges’ decisions are also informed by domestic and international case law, and this declaration is immutable. Time will tell how much of a tangible difference it will make.”
Yvette Cooper, who finalized the agreement at the high-level meeting in Chisinau, Moldova, is expected to discuss the centers issue in the next two days.
The foreign secretary told the Guardian: “Reform and Conservatives have called for the complete dismantling of international law – even though the same international laws are needed for the cooperation of our law enforcement against criminal trafficker gangs or to support pillars such as the Good Friday agreement.
“The Greens instead called for the removal of border controls, which would harm our national security. None of their approaches serve our national interests.
“This is why Labor is reforming the ECHR with partners across the continent, because we know that the relationships we build abroad make us stronger at home.”
Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset said during the conference that discussions on the removal of people arriving in Europe irregularly will take place “at the multilateral level”.
Starmer’s government has encouraged the establishment of return centers as a deterrent measure against irregular migration. Home Affairs Minister Shabana Mahmood told MPs in November that the Home Office was in “active negotiations” with several countries but no deals had been confirmed.
The previous government’s plan to send people arriving by small boats to Rwanda by 2024, costing £715 million, was canceled after not a single person could be sent. The high court ruled that this policy was illegal because Rwanda was not a safe country.
The EU voted to allow the possibility of repatriation centres, with Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands involved in talks.
The discussions reportedly focused on 11 countries (Armenia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Libya, Mauritania, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia, Uganda and Uzbekistan). Montenegro denied reports that it was considering giving housing to people whose asylum applications were rejected.
Prof Eirik Bjorge KC, a legal academic at the University of Bristol, also questioned the impact of the declaration but was “regretted” by attempts to change human rights protections.
“Article 3 is the embodiment of the original purpose and purpose of the convention and therefore cannot be changed by political statements,” he said. “In this context, I regret the attempt to relativize the concept of inhuman and degrading treatment.”
Human rights organizations said they were concerned about the declaration. Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, said: “The Chisinau political declaration on the ECHR is an extremely important moment.
“We are deeply concerned that changing the way the ECHR is used by UK courts will open the door to a gradual weakening of human rights protections.”
