Safe passage forrefugees: humane
alternative to the
Rwanda policy

2 Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper

Contents
Executive summary

3

What is the “Rwanda Policy” and why does4

the Government want to implement it?
Inhumane policy

5

Legality of the Rwanda policy

5

Channel crossings in small boats

5

Safe and legal routes

6

Asylum and Safe Passage

6

Deterrence and numbers

6

Dangerous journeys

6

Claiming asylum in the UK

7

Those who are turned down

7

Practical matters
Investment in the home office7
7

How a safe passage visa system would work

8

Immigration detention

8

Conclusion

9This paper has been produced by PCS, in collaboration with Care4Calais

Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper 3

Executive summary
The Government announced in April this year that they intend
to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, in an attempt to deter
people from making the journey across the English Channel.
This paper sets out the Rwanda policy and discusses possible
alternative policy solutions to the current dangerous anduncontrolled situation in the Channel.
The number of people trying to enter the UK in small boats
has continued to rise in recent years and, since the Rwanda
deportation policy was announced, the number of channel
crossings has hit an all-time high.
There are concerns that the policy is unlawful, as it potentiallybreaches international human rights law and refugee law,and the policy’s legality is being challenged in the courts. The
Government has been heavily criticised for trying to force
through a potentially unlawful policy, rather than addressing
the issue of safe passage for asylum seekers.
The policy seeks to target those who enter the UK “illegally”,
despite the reality that the vast majority of persons seeking
asylum in the UK have no way to legally travel here. These
people are left with no other choice than to pay people
smugglers and make the perilous journey to the UK.
This paper sets out the case for a Safe Passage Visa, which
would allow refugees a visa, for travel purposes only, so thatthey can cross the Channel safely. This would mean refugees
wouldn’t need to risk their lives in Channel crossings and would
break the people smugglers’ business model.
On arrival in the UK they would claim asylum under the normal
asylum process – meaning that if they do not satisfy therequirements to claim asylum in the UK, their claims would fail.

stated the need for a quicker and more efficient asylum
application process that would reduce the significant expenseof refugees staying in UK hotels and rented accommodation at
taxpayers’ expense.
Rather than handing over vast amounts of public money toprivate hotel owners and landlords, this money would bebetter spent in the Home Office to ensure the department
and its workers have the resources available to handle asylum
claims quicker.
Some asylum seekers find themselves in immigration detention
centres and can be held for an unlimited amount of time.
This paper will address the unfairness of this system and thealternatives that provide a better environment for asylum
seekers and the workers who process their claims.
Advocates for an alternative to the Rwanda policy point to therecord numbers of people crossing the Channel as evidence
that the policy is failing as a deterrent. More people are putting
themselves and their families at risk and there is no sign thatthe numbers will ease.
The Rwanda policy fails to address the key issues of safe passage
for those who want to claim asylum in the UK. The insistence on
pursuing such a policy is cruel, inhumane and puts many more
people at risk of danger and exploitation.
There is a viable alternative - an alternative that has alreadybeen used in the UK for Ukrainian refugees and others – thatmassively reduces these risks. A Safe Passage Visa is the mosteffective way to stop people smuggling and ensure refugees
are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
The paper’s key demands are:

A similar visa system was set up in response to the Russian
invasion of Ukraine and since then, there has been no single
reported incident of a Ukrainian refugee crossing the Channel
in a small boat or a Ukrainian refugee drowning.
As is currently the case for asylum screening processes, an online
screening process would be required for the visas to be issued
only to those who have a viable asylum claim. Online screening
would mean there would be no need for processing centres inFrance and consequently no build-up of refugees in Calais.
This paper also highlights the calls made by the union
representing Home Office and Border staff, PCS, which has

Implementation of a Safe Passage Visa Scheme, to allow• refugees
to enter the UK safely and begin their asylum claim.
investment in the Home Office to ensure that• Greater
staff in the department have the time, space and resources
to properly determine asylum claims; free from politicalpressure and interference.
of immigration detention centres, so refugees are• Reform
helped rather than punished; and to provide a better working
environment for staff to produce better outcomes and a
supportive environment for refugees.

4 Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper

What is the “Rwanda Policy” and why does
the Government want to implement it?
On 14 April 2022, the Government formally announced thepolicy to forcibly send people seeking asylum in the UK to
Rwanda1. The policy – officially known as the Migration andEconomic Development Partnership – will see asylum applicants
whose claims are deemed ‘inadmissible’ relocated to Rwanda.
An asylum claim is deemed inadmissible, and the applicant
therefore eligible to be removed to Rwanda, if the Home Office
determines in its screening process that the applicant’s journeyto the UK can be described as having been dangerous, if theapplicant has previously been present in, or had a connection
to, another country in which they could have claimed asylum,2and if they travelled on or after 1 January 2022.
Home Office guidance states that a “dangerous journey
is one able or likely to cause harm or injury. For example,
this would include those that travel via small boat, orclandestinely in lorries.”
The processing of such applications will be undertaken by
the Rwanda government and the sole responsibility for theapplicant’s asylum claim will be with Rwanda. Unlike othercountries with similar policies, such as Australia, which has
implemented offshore processing for asylum claims, those withsuccessful claims when relocated to Rwanda will remain there.
When the policy was launched, the then Home Secretary Priti
Patel wrote that the aims were to “tackle illegal immigration,
control our borders and crack down on the criminal gangs
exploiting this international crisis”.3 The Government has been
explicit in their references to people who enter the UK via smallboats and lorries and they intend to use relocation to Rwanda
as a deterrent.

Inhumane Policy
The policy has been condemned by charities, trade unions andinternational refugee organisations. The United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees said in a legal analysis that the
Rwanda policy is “incompatible with the letter and spirit of the1951 Refugee Convention”.4

result, we are likely to see a lowering of humanitarian standards
globally and such a situation will have dire consequences whencountries are shifting responsibility for refugee protection to athird country.”5
Rwanda’s human rights record has also been highlighted,
with the country accused of routinely suppressing political
opposition, using torture and discriminating against membersof the LGBTQI+ community. 6
In July last year, the UK’s International Ambassador for Human
Rights raised concerns regarding Rwanda’s human rights
record, specifically its rejection of the UK’s recommendation to“conduct transparent, credible and independent investigations
into allegations of human rights violations including deaths incustody and torture.”7
Officials within the Government also raised concerns about
the policy, as shown by documents disclosed as part of a High
Court hearing.8 The documents show that Priti Patel pushed
through the policy despite concerns about the country’s humanrights record and the “limited evidence about whether these
proposals will be a sufficient deterrent for those seeking toenter the UK illegally”.
The UK Government is aware of the many concerns and has
tried to suppress them. The Foreign Office had been due before
the summer parliamentary recess to publish its annual humanrights report but still has not done so.9 It is expected that thereport will be highly critical of Rwanda’s human rights record
and it has been alleged that the publication might have been
delayed to protect the deportation policy.
PCS, which represents workers in the Home Office whoare expected to deliver the policy, has been highly criticalof it.10 The union has said that expecting staff to carry out
such a policy is counter to its aims of improving the working
environment in which its members operate.
PCS members working in this area have stated their desire
to work in a system that is humane and fair, which offers
dignity and respect for refugees and workers. 11 Members
have stated their desire to be given the resources and timeneeded to effectively handle claims, rather than being used bygovernment ministers who are seeking to score political points.

The Refugee Council has raised serious concerns about theexternalisation of asylum claims and the knock-on effect this
could have: “Denying anyone the right to claim asylum in the
UK is very concerning, it erodes the very foundation of not only
our domestic humanitarian protection regime but creates analarming precedent which other countries might follow. As a

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-partnership-to-tackle-global-migration-crisis
2 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/1084315/Inadmissibility.pdf
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-partnership-to-tackle-global-migration-crisis
4 https://www.ein.org.uk/news/unhcr-uks-migration-partnership-rwanda-unlawful-and-incompatiblerefugee-convention

5 https://media.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/28142150/Refugee-Councilsbriefing-outsourcing-and-Rwanda-Final.pdf
6 https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/rwanda
7 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/un-human-rights-council-universal-periodic-reviewadoption-rwanda
8 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/19/uk-officials-raised-concerns-over-rwanda-policydocuments-show
9 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/19/liz-truss-accused-of-delaying-human-rightsreport-over-criticism-of-rwanda
10 https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/rwanda-policy-immoral-unlawful-unworkable
11 https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-brings-legal-challenge-against-plans-send-asylumseekers-rwanda

Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper 5

Legality of the Rwanda policy
The lawfulness of the Rwanda policy is currently being
challenged in court on several bases, including:
The Policy is unlawful as it exposes the asylum-seekers
to breaches of Article 3 of the European Convention on
Human Rights.
The Policy is unlawful because Rwanda will not discharge
the UK’s full obligations under the Refugee Convention
The policy amounts to unlawful penalisation contrary to
Article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which recognisesthat refugees may have no legal way to enter a country
in which they are seeking asylum, and precludes‘penalties’ being imposed on them on account of that
‘illegal’ entry.

•••

Channel crossings in small boats
The Government wants to use the Rwanda policy and othermeasures to reduce the number of people entering the UK insmall boats. Figures up to 14 August 2022 show that so far
this year, over 22,000 people had crossed the Channel in smallboats, which is almost double the number up to the same
point in 2021.

The number of people making the journey has
increased year on year12
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

299
1,800
20,122
28,526
projected: 60,000

The total number of people who crossed in 2021 was a nearly
9,000% increase on 2018.
Since the Rwanda policy was announced in April this year, people
in small boats coming to the UK has continued to rise. Analysisof data from the beginning of August this year13 shows that over
8,000 people have made the journey across the Channel.
On Monday 22 August this year, a new record was set for
the number of people who crossed the Channel in smallboats in a single day14. 1,295 people, in 27 boats, made thecrossing, surpassing the previous record set in November ofthe previous year.
12 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-smallboats-weekly-data
13 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-smallboats-weekly-data/weekly-number-of-migrants-detected-in-small-boats-1-august-to-7-august-2022
14 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/migrants-detected-crossing-the-englishchannel-in-small-boats

The number of people on boats has increased
year-on-year Data: Ministry of Defence 15
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

7
11
13
28
Spring/Summer: high 30s/low 40s

Data from the Ministry of Defence15 shows that since 2018, thenumber of people on boats has increased year-on-year: in 2018
there were an average of seven people on a small boat, in 2019an average of 11 people per boat, and in 2020 an average of
13 people per boat and in 2021 an average of 28 per boat.
The figures for Spring and Summer this year show more days
with an average number of people in a single boat in the high
40s or low 50s.
Far from the Rwanda policy deterring people from making
the dangerous journey across the Channel, more people arecrossing than ever before in dangerously overcrowded boats.
November last year saw the deadliest day on record, as 31
people drowned, including a pregnant woman.16
It has been claimed by Priti Patel that 70% of those crossing
the Channel in small boats are economic migrants. Researchfrom both the UNHCR and Refugee Council disputes this, withanalysis of data showing that “the majority of men, women andchildren who cross the Channel in small boats are likely to berecognised as needing protection as a result of an asylum claim
and allowed to remain in the UK”.
During the summer of 2022, the number of Albanians making
the journey on small boats began to increase. 2,165 Albanians
were recorded as arriving in the UK by small boats between
January and June 2022, compared with just 23 detected in thesame period the previous year.17 Albania is designated as a safecountry by the Home Office but data shows that the majority(53%) of Albania who make the crossing are granted asylum.18
The Refugee Council and others have said that the crossingsare being exploited by criminal gangs, with many refugees
having been trafficked and are victims of criminal and sexual
exploitation19. There are worrying signs that the success of
small boat crossings is changing behaviours and this is being
exploited by traffickers. This is a relatively new phenomenon
and data is still being collected but this latest development
makes it even more imperative that action is taken to stop boat
crossings via the facilitation of safe passage.

15 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-smallboats-weekly-data/weekly-number-of-migrants-detected-in-small-boats-1-august-to-7-august-2022
16 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/24/several-people-dead-migrant-boat-capsizes-channel
17 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/proportion-refugees-granted-uk-asylumhits-32-year-high
18 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-june-2022/how-manypeople-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to
19 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/25/proportion-refugees-granted-uk-asylum-hits32-year-high6 Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper

Safe and legal routes
Under international law, claiming asylum is not illegal. Anyone
has the right to apply for asylum in a country that has signed
the 1951 Convention on Human Rights and can stay in thatcountry until their claim has been assessed.20
When the Rwanda policy was launched in April this year,
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said “it is a plan that will ensure
the UK has a world-leading asylum offer, providing generous
protection to those directly fleeing the worst of humanity, by
settling thousands of people every year through safe andlegal routes”.21
This desire to encourage people to use safe routes does nottake into account the fact that for many people, there is nosafe route for them to enter the UK due to the narrow scopeof current schemes. If there was a safe route by which people
could enter the UK and claim asylum, it is difficult to see whytens of thousands would make the dangerous journey in smallboats. People are left with no other choice.
Refugee Family Reunion is one of the safe and legal routes forpeople seeking asylum to use. It is a safe way for someone who
has already been granted refugee status in the UK to be joinedby their family. Since 2018, 29,000 people have safely cometo the UK under this scheme, 90% being women and children.22
Changes to Family Reunion - through the Nationality and
Borders Act– limit the number of people able to enter the
UK under this scheme. It is estimated that 3,500 people per
year will be prevented from joining their families, with 17,500
people being excluded from this safe and legal route over the
next five years.23 Rather than limiting the scope of this system,
the Government should be expanding it so fewer people resort
to making dangerous journeys to the UK.
Another of the safe and legal routes that are available isRefugee Resettlement. The UNHCR identifies refugees in needof resettlement and they then submit these candidates to the
UK Government, which decides which cases to accept. If theircase is accepted, they are safely transferred to the UK, where
they are given support from local councils and charities.
For most people wanting to claim asylum, this process is notavailable as the numbers resettled globally are minimal. In fact,
less than 1% of refugees are eligible for resettlement24, andin the last year, only 1,622 refugees have been resettled in
the UK25. Although thousands of refugees miss out on specificschemes to bring them to the UK due to eligibility criteria, thisdoes not mean they are ineligible for protection under the
Refugee Convention.
20 https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/refugees-asylum-seekers-and-migrants/#:~:text=The%20
Universal%20Declaration%20of%20Human,where%20they%20risk%20being%20persecuted
21 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-action-to-tackle-illegal-migration-14april-2022
22 https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/government-plans-will-all-but-destroy-main-saferoute-out-of-conflict-for-women-and-children-at-risk-warns-refugee-council/
23 https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/government-plans-will-all-but-destroy-main-saferoute-out-of-conflict-for-women-and-children-at-risk-warns-refugee-council/
24 https://www.unhcr.org/uk/resettlement.html
25 https://refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/refugee-resettlement-facts/

The current schemes made available to Ukrainians involve
issuing visas. The sponsorship scheme allows people living in
the UK to sponsor a named Ukrainian national or family tocome to live in the UK with them, providing they have suitableaccommodation to offer. The Ukraine Family Scheme allows
applicants to join family members in the UK.
Concerns have been raised about this because these schemes
are not available to refugees of any other nationalities. The
Government launches specific and time-limited schemes inreaction to world events, for specific nationalities, such as
Afghans, Ukrainians and Hong Kong residents. These are notthe only places in the world which create refugees and despite
being in equal need of protection, the overwhelming majority
cannot enter the UK through these legal routes.

Asylum and safe passage
At present, there is no system in place that allows a person seeking
asylum - other than the nationality-specific schemes that havealready been mentioned - to apply for a visa to enter the UK, so thatthey can subsequently make an asylum claim on arrival.
Therefore, people who are unable to enter the UK througheither the refugee Family Reunion or refugee resettlement
schemes (i.e. the vast majority of refugees) can only do so
without official permission, for example in the back of lorries orby crossing the Channel in a small boat.
Should the Government offer safe passage visas to otherrefugees, in a similar way to how this is done for Ukrainians
and had been done for other nationalities after specific global
events, this would achieve the Government’s stated objectives
for the Rwanda policy more humanely and effectively.
There is evidence, via the Ukrainian schemes, that safe passage
works: no Ukrainians have crossed on small boats or drownedin the Channel, and no Ukrainians have paid people smugglers
because when safe and legal routes exist, refugees use them.

Deterrence and numbers
A distinction should be made between deterring people frommaking dangerous journeys and deterring people from claiming
asylum in the UK.
Dangerous journeys
In recent years, the Government has tried various strategies
to reduce the number of people crossing the Channel by
dangerous means. However, none have had any impact andnumbers continue to rise. If people were applying for visas
to travel to the UK, the Government would have visibility inRwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper 7

respect of people who are arriving.

Practical matters

Evidence presented to the Home Affairs Select Committee in
September 2020 was that 98% of people crossing on smallboats claim asylum on arrival in the UK26. It follows that 98% of
those crossing on small boats would transition over to the newsafe and legal route. By removing 98% of the people smugglers’business, their operation would be transformed from a multimillion-pound enterprise to a small and insignificant activity. Far
more importantly, lives would be saved.

A similar idea, humanitarian visas, has been used by somecountries, particularly by some EU member states as a means to
reduce the number of migrants making the dangerous journey
across the Mediterranean.29 France was one of the countries
to offer humanitarian visas and between 2013 and 2016,
the country granted over 3,000 humanitarian visas to Syrian
refugees.30 Other countries that use humanitarian visas (although
not always referred to as such) include Belgium, Switzerland,
Russia, Argentina, Brazil and the United States.

Claiming asylum in the UK
In 2021, 7% of refugees in Europe came to the UK to claim
asylum27. This means that 93% claimed asylum in other EU
countries, for example, 28% went to Germany, 18% went
to France, 10% went to Spain, and 8% went to Italy28. It is acommon misconception that ‘all’ refugees want to come to theUK; in fact, most do stay in other safe countries.
The most common reasons for travelling onwards to the UK
are family and communityUK
ties; and language. People3%
with those ties are already
Italy 8%
coming to the UK. People
do not choose to stay intheir dangerous homeGermany 28%
Spain 10%countries or go to adifferent country, because
France 18%of UK Government policy.
The fact is that mostrefugees who come toEurope do not try to come to the UK – they claim asylum
elsewhere, and would continue to do so.
Those who are turned down
There would be people who are denied a visa and there
would be a risk of these people considering a dangerous
journey as before.
However, it should be remembered that 98% of those who crosson small boats claim asylum on arrival – the incentive to crossis the hope of a safe life. If the visa is denied that possibility isremoved. It is one thing to risk your life for the hope of a safe
future, quite another to risk it for a life of permanent precarity.
While safe passage is a more effective way of achieving theGovernment’s objectives than the Rwanda policy, more
importantly, it will be more humane and will not risk breachinginternational law. The Rwanda policy risks making the UK
complicit in human rights violations. This is a not-insignificant
risk and has implications for the Home Office staff who will be
implementing the policy.
26 https://twitter.com/commonshomeaffs/status/1301572511201665024
27 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/howmany-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to#asylum-applications
28 https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/asylum-applications-eu/

In December 2021, a group of MPs tabled an amendment to the
Nationality and Borders Bill that sought to include the provisionof humanitarian visas for refugees based in France wanting toenter the UK.31
One of the major barriers to this proposal, and others like itin the past, is the extreme resistance on the part of France toanything that might cause a build-up of refugees in or aroundCalais and the resulting questions about their living conditions.
The experience with Ukrainian refugees once more suggests
a solution. Very quickly after the introduction of the Ukrainianvisas, the system switched to an online system via which
visas can be applied for from anywhere in Europe. The UK
has an existing network of visa centres across Europe which
can be visited if people have difficulties, for example with
documentation. This is why there has not been a build-up of
Ukrainian refugees in Calais.
The more likely and the real practical issue would be thepotential for the visas to be declined as a means to prevent
people from getting to the UK to make an asylum applicationin the first place. In this case, we would quickly return tothe position of many people in Calais crossing over in smallboats. The visa system will only work if there is a real will from
Government for it to do so. The incentive would be the fact that
there would be political capital to be gained from halting small
boat crossings, which the Rwanda policy will not do.
The related issue that should be addressed is the current
excessive and unnecessary costs of the UK asylum system,
which have been estimated at £5m per day for keeping people
in hotels32. The sensible step that should be taken is an urgent
initiative to, firstly, process as many outstanding claims as possible
and, secondly, speed up the processing of new claims. People
with status can work, support themselves and pay taxes. There isno need for them to be living in hotels at taxpayer expense.
Investment in the Home OfficeThis would require significant investment in the Home Office.
29 https://redcross.eu/projects/humanitarian-visas-in-practice
30 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150782/eprs-study-humanitarian-visas.pdf
31 https://www.jcwi.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=3e589cfe-383e-40a1-ac82-eb3430e7b1d7
32 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/faster-accommodation-moves-for-unaccompanied-asylumseeking-children

8 Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper

The thinking of the Government in May 2022 was the opposite,with plans published to cut over 91,000 jobs from the civil
service.33 Each Government department would be expected
to identify where 20% of jobs could be lost, to reduce the civil
service headcount to pre-2016 levels.
For the Home Office to effectively process asylum claims, deal
with backlogs and handle the Channel crossings crisis, it needs
more resources, not less. The lack of resources that have been
available to the Home Office has been highlighted by PCS after
it was announced in May this year that the government intends
to return the Civil Service headcount to 2016 levels. This would
see the overall Civil Service headcount drop by 91,000 andaround 10,000 in the Home Office.34
Staff who deal with asylum applications want what is bestfor those who use the system and it is a system they havevaluable knowledge of, and experience in. This expertiseshould be utilised by Government, campaigners andpolicymakers when discussing the solutions needed toensure safe passage for refugees.

How a safe passage visa system would work:
A safe passage visa would enable a qualifying person to travel
safely to the UK so that they could claim asylum on arrival. They
would then go through the normal UK asylum process, meaningthat if it were ultimately determined that they were ineligible forasylum, they would not be allowed to stay in the UK.

A humanitarian visa scheme application process involves
greater processing and screening.

Immigration detention
The paper refers to this issue because under the proposed
safe passage visa scheme, asylum seekers will enter theapplication process in the normal way. It is therefore possiblethat an applicant entering the UK may at some point enter animmigration detention centre.
An asylum seeker can be detained during different stages of
their asylum application process, where they may be subjected
to deportation orders or have been detained after renewing
their visa. For those who are detained, the procedure they are
engaged in is an administrative one, not a criminal one, as they
have not committed any crimes.
In the UK, there are around 24,000 people detained every year,
at several sites across the country, some of which are operated
by private companies.35 The UK is the only country in Europethat places no time limit on how long someone can be held
in immigration detention36. There is also a significant cost to
immigration detention, with the latest data available showingthat the cost per person per year was £34,51437.
Several organisations have been critical of the immigration
detention system, with arguments that people are treated as
criminals and often detained for long periods, to the detrimentof their physical and mental health38.

A person would qualify if:
are in the EU;• Theyare not an EU national or a national of Liechtenstein,• TheyNorway or Switzerland; and• They have a viable claim for asylum in the UK.
There would be no fee for the application and legal aid would
be available for any appeal.
The visa would be applied for online and, if successful, theapplicant would be sent an electronic letter that they could
use to enter the UK. Necessary documents would be uploadedwith the application or, if this is not possible, the applicant
could visit a visa centre located across Europe. On arrival in
the UK, they would be required to visit a UK centre to provide
biometric data.
The scheme differs from the humanitarian visa schemes
due to the main intention of the safe passage visa scheme
being to get an applicant to the UK safely, and they would
then enter the normal asylum process on arrival in the UK.
33 https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-condemns-johnsons-mass-civil-service-job-cuts-plan
34 https://www.pcs.org.uk/news-events/news/pcs-rejects-governments-announcement-slash-thousandshome-office-jobs

This paper seeks to highlight the alternatives proposed to thecurrent system.
“It is cheaper, more humane and more effective to upholdthe liberty of migrants while their cases are progressing
and to provide them with casework support in thecommunity”39 – Detention Action
This ensures that those entering this country to flee persecution
and harm are not subjected to further distressing treatment in
the UK asylum system.
While this paper focuses on the specific issue of safe passage forrefugees, the issue of community-based support for all asylum
seekers has relevance. The support discussed above should
include all those who enter the asylum process, not just as analternative for those who are held in detention centres.
Investment in these services should be seen as an interim
measure to solve the problems associated with the asylum
process, such as the negative impact on asylum seekers’
35 https://detentionaction.org.uk/about-detention/what-is-immigration-detention/
36 https://aviddetention.org.uk/immigration-detention/what-immigration-detention
37 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-enforcement-data-february-2020
38 https://detentionaction.org.uk/get-involved/end-indefinite-detention/
39 https://detentionaction.org.uk/community-support-project/

Rwanda Policy and Safe Passage Visas Paper 9

mental health, poor quality and high-cost accommodation andisolation from society.
The quickest and most effective way solve to these problems,
as has been referenced earlier in this paper, is the fast andefficient processing of claims. The sooner a decision can bemade on a claim, the less time and money is being spent on
temporary housing and other costs, and the sooner refugees
can begin to participate fully in society, find work and get toknow people in their community.

Conclusion
There is an urgent need for the creation of safe and legal routes
for refugees. Early analysis shows that since the Rwanda policy
was announced, the policy has had the opposite effect to theone intended, with record numbers of people making thedangerous crossing.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak fully supports the Rwanda policy andhas said he will do ‘whatever it takes’ to make it work. He also
reinstated Suella Braverman as Home Secretary, who said it washer ‘dream’ and ‘obsession’ to see a flight take asylum seekers
to Rwanda.
It’s a hugely worrying indication that in the face of mounting
evidence that the policy is cruel and unworkable, thisgovernment fully intends to implement it.
This paper has set out the opposition to the policy and takes
the crucial step of proposing an alternative. The safe passage
visa scheme seeks to overcome the main hurdle faced by thosewanting to seek asylum, which is getting to the UK to start
their claim. Refugees who have to make incredibly dangerous
journeys from their home country should not be faced withfurther life-threatening obstacles to claiming asylum in the UK.
With more people crossing than ever before, a safe passage visa
scheme could:
reduce the number of people forced to make the• Drasticallydangerous journey in small boats.
the model of people smugglers.
• Breakcontrol over who is entering the from Europe UK.
• Provideour humanitarian obligations.
• Address
the risk of the UK being complicit in human rights• Removeviolations via the Rwanda policy.
This government should be committed to a fair and humane
asylum system. It is so far failing and it is refugees who arepaying the price.

NotesThe Rwanda policy is unimaginably
callous and cruel. It’s refugees – andcivil servants who will have to effectthis cruel policy – who will bothsuffer. This paper is an important
step in the pursuit of an asylum
system that treats people humanely
and with dignity.
Mark Serwotka, PCS General SecretaryPublic andCommercial
Services Union

www.pcs.org.uk@pcs_union@PcsUnion

1700 Photo: © Jess Hurd

Public and Commercial Services Union
160 Falcon Road, London SW11 2LN
Telephone: 020 7929 2727