The UK government has ruled out the introduction of a safe and legal route for asylum seekers in Sudan to seek refuge in the country. This decision was made despite calls for the UK to open up routes to asylum seekers due to the potential humanitarian crisis in Sudan. The World Health Organization has reported that violence in Sudan has left at least 459 people dead, and only 16% of the country’s medical facilities are functioning.
During PMQs, Rishi Sunak refused to commit to a safe route for refugees from Sudan when pressed by the SNP’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn. Similarly, Suella Braverman has stated that the UK has no plans to introduce such a route. The focus of the government is to support British nationals and their dependents, with at least 300 UK citizens having been removed from Sudan.
Those eligible to come to the UK have been told to make their way to an airfield near the capital Khartoum so they can be airlifted to Cyprus. However, there are concerns that some may have to travel hundreds of miles to the coast if the threads of peace sever.
The government’s decision has been met with criticism, with Mr. Flynn calling for “more humanity” in the debate from all sides. He further questioned whether the government plans to detain and deport a child refugee who flees Sudan and comes to the UK.
The question of how the UK will support potential asylum seekers outside of specific schemes like Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Hong Kong has repeatedly arisen as the government attempts to reform the immigration system. Ms. Braverman has previously struggled to explain how someone wanting to claim asylum in the UK could do so.
Currently, the UK has invested almost a quarter of a million pounds in humanitarian support in Sudan over the past five years. The government has also welcomed almost 500,000 vulnerable people to the country in the last few years. However, the decision not to introduce a safe and legal route for asylum seekers in Sudan has sparked debate and concern among MPs.
Leave a Reply