THE TABLET

THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC WEEKLY FOUNDED IN 1840

ASYLUM SEEKERS

THIS IS A SHAMEFUL

WAY TO

TREAT MIGRANTS

Looking out to sea from the Port of Dover, it is possible to discern the “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar” of the retreat by Britain from the civilised and humane treatment of migrants. Hundreds have crossed the English Channel in small boats this year, often no more than frail rubber dinghies with outboard motors, in a desperate effort to stand on British soil. The government increasingly sees it as its duty, doubtless presuming the backing of public opinion, to thwart them by any lawful means, including using the Royal Navy to intercept them. It has even contemplated opening concentration camps for them on remote Atlantic islands. Such an attitude is shameful and unworthy of the United Kingdom.

In order to qualify for the right to claim asylum, migrants have to be physically present on dry land. This is a peculiar quirk of international law that the UK, and many other countries, have ruthlessly exploited. The goal it sets for the authorities is to turn these boats back before they reach the shore. Halfway across the Channel they leave French territorial waters and become the UK’s responsibility.

In a submission to the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales spoke up for human decency when it stated: “The current tendency to suggest that people should remain in France, Greece or other supposedly ‘safe countries’ is oversimplistic and ignores the lived realities of those risking their lives to reach our shores.” Coercive measures will only increase the dangers, not reduce the flow.

The Catholic Church has had a particular experience of immigration, not only from Ireland but

from Poland and other Eastern European countries. It is therefore uniquely placed to bear witness to the “… turbid ebb and flow / Of human misery …”, to use another phrase from Matthew Arnold’s poem “Dover Beach”, that generates migration flows in the modern world. There is nothing in sight that will subdue them, which makes the British effort in the English Channel seem particularly fatuous and misconceived.

In his encyclical Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis hits the nail on the head: “No one will ever openly deny that [migrants] are human beings, yet in practice, by our decisions and the way we treat them, we can show that we consider them less worthy, less important, less human. For Christians … this sets certain political preferences above deep convictions of our faith: the inalienable dignity of each human person regardless of origin, race or religion, and the supreme law of fraternal love.”

The alternative to the dangerous game of cat and mouse between rubber dinghies and government patrol boats, as the bishops explain, is simply to allow asylum claims to be registered abroad. Those accepted would then have a safe and legal route into the UK, which can be properly managed in a dignified way.

The man given the job of turning migrants’ boats back is former Royal Marine officer Dan O’Mahoney. He recently told The Daily Telegraph: “The vast majority of people seeking refuge in the UK are genuine asylum seekers. And they come from incredibly difficult conditions in the country … and I have a huge amount of sympathy for that.”

The point is they are no “threat” to anyone. So why not let them claim asylum in Britain without having to face this dangerous passage across the open sea?

SCHOOLS AND

COVID-19

ANOTHER

CHANCE MISSED FOR EXAM RETHINK

The government is in trouble over its response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the country is in trouble too, partly as a result. Nothing illustrates this better than the announcement that next year’s A-level and GCSE examinations in England are to be postponed by three weeks, so that pupils can catch up on time lost due to the closure of schools as a precaution against coronavirus.

But they were not closed for three weeks; it was more like six months. This situation has all the makings of another government fiasco leading to another U-turn. The announcement ignored advice from head teachers and other experts. Once again the educational establishment is treated not as people who know what they are talking about but as a special interest with hidden motives.

The announcement presupposes that the disruptive effects of the disease will be more or less over by next summer, which is wishful thinking. This autumn’s “second wave” has already arrived quicker than expected: Covid-19 is not a predictable enemy. This uncertainty refers not only to the new examination timetables but to the many months leading up to them, when schools may well face increasingly severe interruptions.

So with the disruption of schooling as inevitable as it is unpredictable, next summer’s exam results are more likely to reflect a school’s more or less random

experience of the virus than to be a fair test of the academic ability of its pupils. The impact will be even greater on pupils at state schools – whose education has suffered disproportionately since the beginning of the pandemic.

It seems an opportunity for fresh thinking has been missed again – for instance, there is increasing questioning in the educational world of the usefulness of the entire GCSE system. With children staying on until they are 18, why measure their performance at 16 as well as two years later? There is also a growing consensus that statutory primary school tests – the Sats – are not helpful at age seven, and not much better at 11. Year Two Sats are due to be abolished in 2023 anyway. Why persist with them now? And what are the Year Six Sats for, exactly? Are they to assist secondary schools evaluate and sort their intake by ability, or are they to encourage competition between local primary schools by publishing league tables?

Are they indeed part of a marketisation agenda by previous Conservative governments – when markets had the answer to everything – that has passed its sell-by date? What relevance do they have in a world struggling to cope with the unpredictable impact of a dangerous pandemic? Is the government even aware that these questions exist, or does it insist on behaving as if the world can soon be put back to how it was the day before yesterday?

2 | THE TABLET | 17 OCTOBER 2020