This letter had contributions from 7 people and over 30 emailed to say how pleased they were with it. Thanks to everyone who took the time to help and to all who read and approved.

Sent 29th March 2021

We  feel every refugee should be met with compassion regardless of the journey they take to the UK and what they most need are safe and legal routes to sanctuary. The new plans do not offer this -instead they seem to be punishing asylum seekers for taking the only routes they can access as they seek safety from persecution. Indeed are the plans  even lawful under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention?

1 Restriction to ‘Official ‘ routes
Our understanding is that these plans state that only refugees arriving via extraordinarily restricted “official” routes, such as the refugee resettlement scheme,[ which seems to be at a standstill currently]  will be given the right to live in the UK. To  qualify for this most people will have to be in a refugee camp and screened by the UNHCR. This is not available to many who have to flee.
Put simply, people fleeing for their lives have little choice in how they seek safety. People  escaping from violence and oppression are often forced to flee with  no documents, no identification and no belongings. They cannot use legal routes. We are aware of many individuals in this situation. Also, people may want  and need to live in the  UK rather than other European countries because of family links, knowing the language or because of a deep-seated belief that Britain upholds human rights and is a safe place.We should be proud that our country has this reputation and we should be grateful for the enormous contribution to our society made by people seeking sanctuary over the past century and more.

We can understand  and share the desire to try to stop human trafficking but the measures announced seem to us  to be penalising the vulnerable people who are trying to seek safety. If the right to seek asylum is withdrawn for  people who do not or cannot  use the restricted official routes  then they will simply not register a claim and will be very vulnerable to exploitation and modern day slavery. The new proposals will also curtail rights to reunite with family.

Possible solution-
If  claims were efficiently processed in Calais, Dunkirk and in the Greek camps and then  safe transport were arranged, the tragic loss of life in the channel would be eliminated, and  overcrowding in the camps reduced and rough sleeping by new arrivals eliminated. .

2 Unaccompanied Children
There is a distinct void in the plan about safe routes to reunite children with families in the UK. Offering them safe routes will prevent them from trying to enter the UK by hiding under a lorry or trying to sail  across the channel and allow them to rejoin their families and rebuild their lives. The system to allow them to be reunited and safe needs to be quicker and simpler because delays increase their vulnerability, cause desperation and empower people smugglers and others who seek to profit from their plight.
We also fear the changes outlined for age assessment will increase the risks for children seeking asylum. The suggestion of  more ‘scientific ‘checks and that immigration officials and other staff would carry out the assessments removes the expertise of social workers and others.  We are aware that current Home Office guidance states that  the scientific methods “can only estimate age and as a consequence there will always be a margin for error”. Age assessment is a complex matter and needs experience.

3 Temporary Leave to Remain
We gather that the proposals also mean that some people who are granted refugee status will only have this status temporarily and will be regularly reassessed for deportation. In short, some people will never be able to feel truly safe and will be constantly traumatised by anxiety about the future.
This plan appears to be both inhumane and unworkable at a time when the current back log in determining asylum claims is rising despite reduced numbers of applications.
People  given Leave to Remain must be allowed  to settle and contribute to our society in a positive way, free from further doubt and peril..

4   Removal and Appeals
The proposal to  rapidly remove people by streamlining the appeals system is also concerning as currently over  40%   of appeals are successful. It seems that  when  a traumatised person with poor language skills first makes their claim, they may not  properly  express  their reasons for seeking asylum.  This is not surprising given that many  may suffer from PTSD, have had previous and traumatic experience of official interviews, are frightened that anything they may say might jeopardise family and friends who remained behind and are conscious that they have little or no documentary proof of their lives and experiences up to the present moment.
The asylum system  certainly needs overhauling but streamlining by ignoring people’s needs and situation is not the way to do it.
5. Britain’s record
In almost every news article or letter from the Government  there is mention of our proud history of welcoming refugees, but  no acknowledgement that the present situation which  tends to  demonise, dehumanise and disempower people is shameful.

We have written before about our concerns about the language used when referring to
people seeking asylum . For the safety and unity of our communities across Britain, it is vital to avoid any practice which can encourage or spread racism or the demonisation of ‘the other’.The language used by ministers, MPs and government officials it is crucial and must be measured and sensitive.
As an example, Sweden has invested in people seeking protection by supporting access to education and employment since 2015.  This has led to significant economic growth in the country and kick-started the regeneration of many areas. This helps to reinforce positive messages and help the host communities to perceive the value and benefit of their asylum policies. Could we follow suit?

The Home Secretary  says  that the plans she has announced are the changes people want. We know hundreds of people in this area ,HBTSR members and supporters and the very many others who have supported our work and welcomed people seeking sanctuary to their communities  who want something very different. We hope that we will have a proud future of welcoming refugees. Sadly, the measures proposed by the government will have the opposite effect.

Please can you offer reassurance that people seeking asylum will have their rights to seek asylum protected?  That the 1951 UN Refugee Convention will be followed?
Can we trust the Home Office when they reassured us all many times about the suitability of the barracks accommodation that has been shown by the UK Government’s own Inspectorate to have been  far below acceptable standards and contributed to many catching Covid 19? Is this the legacy we are leaving for our children to be proud of?
Finally, HBTSR would be very happy to arrange an [on-line] meeting for you with some of the people associated with our group who are seeking sanctuary and could tell you about their experiences.  Please let us know if you would find this useful.