Plans being devised by UK ministers to use processing hubs in third countries for Afghans eligible to come to Britain have been labelled a “half-baked idea” by the peer and former child refugee Alf Dubs.
Lord Dubs, who fled the Nazis as a child via the Kindertransport rescue mission, told The Independent there were “so many unknowns” about the potential plans, as Conservative MPs also demanded that more details be published.
The last civilian evacuation flight left the Afghan capital Kabul on Saturday, but ministers estimate that over 1,000 people thought to be eligible for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) did not make it onto a flight.
These people – who have worked in roles such as interpreting for the British mission in the country over the last 20 years – have been told not to travel directly to Europe, and instead to head for as yet unidentified processing centres in neighbouring countries to apply for assistance.
Lord Dubs said: “First of all, people have got to get out of the country, they’ve got to find some way out, and presumably where they get out to is Pakistan, Iraq, Iran or Uzbekistan – one of the border countries.
“I’m being a bit worried about this because the countries have to agree to have processing centres, and secondly what happens if someone is processed and deemed not to be a refugee under the Geneva convention? What happens to him or her then?
“It sounds to me a very half-baked idea which hasn’t been properly thought out,” he added.
“You either process them with the view to accepting them, which is fine, or you process them with a view to refusing them, in which case what would happen to them?”
It comes after the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, insisted the scheme to evacuate Afghans eligible to come to the UK was not “time limited” – despite this weekend’s ending of the UK evacuation mission at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai international airport.
Mr Wallace suggested that a series of “processing hubs” would be established across the region outside Afghanistan for those the government had been unable to airlift to safety out of the Afghan capital, Kabul.
Preparatory talks are understood to have begun with countries bordering Afghanistan, and the “hubs” are expected to involve small units deployed to UN refugee camps or based at local embassies and consulates.
But senior Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood, who chairs the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told The Independent that ministers must publish further details as soon as possible.
“We do require clarity of the movement corridors, which need to be approved by the Taliban, and it would be wise to get this information out as soon as possible to avoid panic,” he said ahead of the end of the mission this weekend.
Mr Ellwood, a former soldier and defence minister, said a lack of information could “endanger” lives.
“We really need to recognise the mission does not end with the departure of the British and Americans. We must endeavour to have a process, a programme, which goes on for months,” he said.
Another senior Tory said: “Lots of people are already looking towards the scheme and lots of Afghans in the UK are contacting their members of parliament, they are asking them for help to identify the way that their family can apply to the scheme, and there is no detail. There’s no mechanism.
“People are desperately worried about their families, they are scared, they know the Taliban are going door to door,” they added.
Ministers in Britain and other European countries have long toyed with the concept of processing hubs outside Europe – also sometimes called “disembarkation platforms” – as a way of dealing with people who want to come to the UK, usually to claim asylum.
The aim of such offshore centres has traditionally been to prevent a person from physically arriving on UK territory before their application is dealt with.
This helps the host country avoid strict obligations under international refugee treaties, and also reduces the likelihood of the applicant absconding in the event that their application is rejected.
Organisational difficulties have meant that the hubs are yet to be in serious use anywhere for general asylum seekers, although the UK and Denmark both say they are progressing with plans.
Steve Valdez-Symonds – UK refugee and migrant rights director at Amnesty International – raised a series of unanswered questions over the use of processing hubs in countries bordering Afghanistan.
“The first big issue in terms of practicalities is what will be the situation, in whatever third countries you’re talking about, for the people who it’s proposed could have claims processed,” he told The Independent.
“Who is going to look after them? Who is going to be willing to receive them to begin with? What accommodation will be provided? How will they therefore be able to access any scheme the UK may be operating, in a place that is not within control of the UK?”
He added: “There’s a real question of whether some people are going to be able to get out of Afghanistan at all, and how dangerous it will be to do so.
“Of course many people will try, not least because they will be making choices of what’s the relative danger between staying and trying to leave. Those are already the decisions being made by some people who are in Kabul now, who might be eligible to get on a plane if only they can reach an airport.
“They are having to ask themselves what’s the relative risk: should I stay and lie low, or try and get to the airport and risk being identified by the Taliban at a checkpoint and not knowing what may happen to me. Exactly that sort of question will apply to anyone trying to leave Afghanistan from wherever.”
