Recommendations & Conclusions
30 items
75
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
There are various safeguards within the clause that help to protect against arbitrary and excessive interferences. There is a requirement of reasonable suspicion that, although low, does place a limit on when the powers can be exercised. The powers are only to be used once per entry, when an irregular …
Read more
There are various safeguards within the clause that help to protect against arbitrary and excessive interferences. There is a requirement of reasonable suspicion that, although low, does place a limit on when the powers can be exercised. The powers are only to be used once per entry, when an irregular migrant is encountered,113 such that the checks cannot be excessive in number. Searches of a person cannot require the removal of anything other 107 Clause 20(3) 108 Clause 20(9) 109 Clause 21(6) 110 Clause 22 111 R (HM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 695 (Admin) 112 Naumenko v Latvia, Application No. 50805/14, 23 June 2022, para 50; Gillan and Quinton v UK, Application No. 4158/05, 12 January 2010; Beghal v UK, Application No. 4755/16, 28 February 2019; R (Roberts) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2015] UKSC 79 113 Clause 20(2) 31 than outer clothing. Any item seized will have to be returned when it is no longer necessary for an authorised officer or the Secretary of State to retain it, subject to the duty to pass on items seized. These are likely to amount to adequate safeguards against arbitrary interference.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government confirms that search and seizure powers are subject to existing safeguards, including reasonable suspicion and case-by-case application, and that forthcoming non-statutory guidance will further ensure their proportionate use.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
83
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Clause 35 provides that the information must then be passed to the Secretary of State, who can keep and use it for purposes relating to immigration, nationality, law enforcement or national security. The information cannot be kept for longer than necessary, and in any event no longer than 5 years, …
Read more
Clause 35 provides that the information must then be passed to the Secretary of State, who can keep and use it for purposes relating to immigration, nationality, law enforcement or national security. The information cannot be kept for longer than necessary, and in any event no longer than 5 years, unless it can be held under another power. Compatibility with Convention rights
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's description of Clause 35, asserting that it does not disapply data protection safeguards and that processing will comply with UK GDPR principles, with due diligence paid to safeguarding personal data.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
93
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
conclusion Clause 37 of the Bill would repeal SORA in its entirety. This is consistent with the current Government’s manifesto commitment to abandon the Rwanda policy. Repeal of SORA will remove the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. Clause 38: Repeal of certain provisions of the Illegal Migration …
Read more
conclusion Clause 37 of the Bill would repeal SORA in its entirety. This is consistent with the current Government’s manifesto commitment to abandon the Rwanda policy. Repeal of SORA will remove the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. Clause 38: Repeal of certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the Committee's support for the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, confirming its commitment to repeal the Act as it served no practical purpose and was inconsistent with previous government policy.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
94
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) introduced significant changes to the UK’s asylum system. In summary, it imposed a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to remove any person who enters the UK irregularly and has not come directly from a territory where their life and liberty …
Read more
The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (IMA) introduced significant changes to the UK’s asylum system. In summary, it imposed a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to remove any person who enters the UK irregularly and has not come directly from a territory where their life and liberty was threatened (which includes anyone who has stopped in or passed through a safe country). The asylum claim of any such individual would be declared inadmissible. In the absence of lawful routes to enter the UK in order to make an asylum claim, and given the requirement that an individual be within the UK in order to make such a claim, the IMA effectively prohibited the substantial majority of asylum seekers from having their claim for asylum considered in the UK. The intention behind the Bill was for those claims to be considered instead in a third country, with only Rwanda being identified as a country that would fulfil this function. The fall of the Rwanda policy thus removed any realistic possibility of the IMA’s approach to asylum being practicable. The JCHR published a critical report on the Illegal Migration Bill, concluding that it “breaches a number of the UK’s international human rights obligations and risks breaching others.”132 The significant majority of the IMA has not yet been brought into force.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states its commitment to ensuring an effective immigration and asylum system and has retained certain measures of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that were assessed as beneficial.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
95
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Clause 38 of the Bill repeals most of the provisions of the IMA. However, a number of provisions will not be repealed: a. Section 12, expanding powers of immigration detention (in force) b. Section 29, strengthening the disqualification from modern slavery protections for migrants who have committed criminal offences or …
Read more
Clause 38 of the Bill repeals most of the provisions of the IMA. However, a number of provisions will not be repealed: a. Section 12, expanding powers of immigration detention (in force) b. Section 29, strengthening the disqualification from modern slavery protections for migrants who have committed criminal offences or are otherwise considered a threat to public order (not in force) c. Section 52, making First-tier Tribunal judges technically also Upper Tribunal judges (in force) d. Section 59, expanding the rules on when an asylum or human rights claim to remain in the UK will not be processed because the person is from a safe country (partially in force) 132 JCHR, Legislative Scrutiny: Illegal Migration Bill 12th Report of 2022–2023, para 160 37 e. Section 60, requiring the Home Secretary to make regulations capping the number of people who can enter the UK using “safe and legal routes”, such as refugee resettlement programmes f. Section 62, expanding the circumstances in which the credibility of an asylum seeker’s story should be treated as damaged (in force).
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states its commitment to ensuring an effective immigration and asylum system and has retained certain measures of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that were assessed as beneficial.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
96
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill notes that these provisions are not subject to repeal due to their “operational benefit”.133
Government response AI summary
The government states its commitment to ensuring an effective immigration and asylum system and has retained certain measures of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that were assessed as beneficial.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
104
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Section 29 of the IMA is not yet in force. Upon commencement, it would amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sets out disqualifications to providing a recovery period139 to a potential victim of modern slavery based on grounds that the person is a threat to …
Read more
Section 29 of the IMA is not yet in force. Upon commencement, it would amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sets out disqualifications to providing a recovery period139 to a potential victim of modern slavery based on grounds that the person is a threat to public order or has claimed to be a victim in bad faith. Section 63(3) NBA sets out categories of person who are considered to be a threat to public order. Section 29 of the IMA adds two further categories to that list, namely: a. persons liable to deportation from the UK under section 3(5) or (6) of the 1971 Act on grounds of it being conducive to the public good or as a result of deportation of a family member or a recommendation following conviction; 137 Medical Justice and Bail for Immigration Detainees, BSAI0033, para10 138 Medical Justice and Bail for Immigration Detainees, BSAI0033, para 3 139 Following a positive Reasonable Grounds decision, adult victims will be provided with a Recovery Period of at least 30 calendar days. This period begins on the day the Reasonable Grounds decision is made. During this period, support and assistance will also be provided on a consensual basis and potential victims will not be removed from the UK. 39 b. persons liable to deportation under any other enactment that provides for such deportation.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government justifies its decision to retain Section 29 of the IMA, which, if commenced, would expand public order disqualifications for modern slavery protections to all foreign national offenders, asserting its compliance with ECAT and ECHR.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
115
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Section 59 IMA (partially in force)149 amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. Section 59 IMA principally does two things. First, it extends the list from EU nationals …
Read more
Section 59 IMA (partially in force)149 amends section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which provides that asylum claims and human rights claims from nationals of listed states must be declared inadmissible. Section 59 IMA principally does two things. First, it extends the list from EU nationals to nationals of Albania, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.150 Second, it amends section 80A such that the inadmissibility provisions apply to human rights claims (that is, a claim by a person that to remove them from the UK would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 which provides that a public authority must not act contrary to the ECHR) as well as asylum claims. Therefore, if enacted, all asylum and human rights claims made by nationals of the listed countries will be automatically inadmissible such that the merits of the claims will not be considered. Notably, the Secretary of State must (rather than may) declare these asylum and human rights claims inadmissible, unless there are exceptional circumstances. 148 Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) (IMB0024), para.16 149 The Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2023 bring section 59 into force only “for the purpose of making regulations”. 150 The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment of List of Safe States) Regulations 2004 add Georgia and India to the list, but this will not take effect until section 59 IMA is fully commenced. 42
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government clarifies that Section 59 of the IMA 2023 is not yet fully commenced but reiterates that existing provisions (Section 80A NIAA) allow for consideration of exceptional circumstances and that country safety is kept under continuous review.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
116
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Inadmissibility procedures allow a State to declare claims “inadmissible” when the claim is made by nationals of countries that are deemed safe. Section 80A(5) provides two non-exhaustive examples of exceptional circumstances. These are narrowly construed: first, where the listed state is derogating from the ECHR, and second, where the state …
Read more
Inadmissibility procedures allow a State to declare claims “inadmissible” when the claim is made by nationals of countries that are deemed safe. Section 80A(5) provides two non-exhaustive examples of exceptional circumstances. These are narrowly construed: first, where the listed state is derogating from the ECHR, and second, where the state is subject to proceedings151 before the EU due to the risk of a serious breach of Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union.152 ‘Exceptional circumstances’ have been defined narrowly by the courts.153 There is no right of appeal (as the asylum/ human rights claims are not refused–they are simply not considered).
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government clarifies that Section 59 of the IMA 2023 is not yet fully commenced, and emphasizes that the "exceptional circumstances" provisions in Section 80A NIAA are not exhaustive, allowing for fact-sensitive assessments.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
118
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The implications for Albanian women and children are particularly concerning. For example, an Albanian woman who has been trafficked to the UK and faces a real risk of reprisals and re-trafficking upon return to Albania, could be returned to Albania unless she can demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” according to the determination …
Read more
The implications for Albanian women and children are particularly concerning. For example, an Albanian woman who has been trafficked to the UK and faces a real risk of reprisals and re-trafficking upon return to Albania, could be returned to Albania unless she can demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” according to the determination of the Secretary of State. The UK country guidance and decisions of UK courts have recognised that certain groups of Albanian citizens may be at risk of persecution.155
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government notes that Section 59 of the IMA 2023 is not yet fully commenced and reiterates that existing provisions allow for fact-sensitive assessments for "exceptional circumstances" in asylum and human rights claims, with country safety under continuous review.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
121
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
In relation to India, Rainbow Migration shared two examples of clients who have been granted asylum in the UK: a. “A trans woman from India came out to her parents at age fourteen. They reacted very negatively, locking her in the house and refusing to let her out. They forced …
Read more
In relation to India, Rainbow Migration shared two examples of clients who have been granted asylum in the UK: a. “A trans woman from India came out to her parents at age fourteen. They reacted very negatively, locking her in the house and refusing to let her out. They forced her to undergo harmful conversion practices, which the UN rightly identity as “degrading” and “inhumane”. b. “A lesbian woman from India had an engagement arranged for her against her will. She told her fiancé about her sexuality and managed to get the engagement called off. However, her family later found out that the reason he had called off the wedding was because she was a lesbian, and she knew that her only option was to flee the country so that her family would not kill or seriously hurt her. After arriving in the UK and being granted asylum, she was informed by a family member in India that another family member said that if she were to return to 157 Helen Bamber and Asylum Aid,, para 27 158 Refugee Council,, para 25 159 Rainbow Migration, para 10, citing https://civil.ge/archives/624795 and Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament 44 India, they would ‘try to kill me, but even if they could not capture me or kill me, they would still throw acid on [my] face as a punishment for dishonouring the family.’”160
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the examples by explaining existing and prospective inadmissibility provisions, and how exceptional circumstances and fact-sensitive assessments allow for consideration of complex asylum claims, noting the continuous review of country safety.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
127
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) to Schedule 3 of the IA 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good.163 According to the Government, …
Read more
Clause 41 amends the current powers contained in paragraph 2(2) to Schedule 3 of the IA 1971, which permits the Secretary of State to detain individuals liable to deportation on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not considered conducive to the public good.163 According to the Government, this clause is intended to “clarify” that the Home Office may detain someone subject to deportation from the point at which the Home Office serves notification that deportation is being considered.164 This means that persons liable to deportation can be detained (when notified in writing by the Secretary of State): a. while the Secretary of State considers whether to make a deportation order, and b. where the Secretary of State decides to make a deportation order, pending the making of the deportation order.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the committee's description of Clause 41, explaining it clarifies existing statutory detention powers and amendments. It stated the clause provides greater legal clarity, justifies its retrospective effect for continuity and public protection, and asserts compatibility with Article 5 ECHR.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
128
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The clause also amends section 141 of the Immigration Act 1999 (fingerprinting) and regulation 2 of the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 (photographs) to clarify that fingerprints and photographs can be taken when the Secretary of State is considering making a deportation …
Read more
The clause also amends section 141 of the Immigration Act 1999 (fingerprinting) and regulation 2 of the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 (photographs) to clarify that fingerprints and photographs can be taken when the Secretary of State is considering making a deportation order.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged that Clause 41 includes consequential amendments for taking biometrics and searches, justifying these as part of clarifying existing lawful detention powers. It maintained the clause provides greater legal clarity and is necessary for immigration control and public protection.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
142
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
At Committee stage in the Commons, the Government added clause 43. This introduces an extension of the existing conditions that may be applied to any grant of limited leave to enter or remain in the UK under section 3(1) (c) of the Immigration Act 1971. This covers persons not liable …
Read more
At Committee stage in the Commons, the Government added clause 43. This introduces an extension of the existing conditions that may be applied to any grant of limited leave to enter or remain in the UK under section 3(1) (c) of the Immigration Act 1971. This covers persons not liable to detention. The new conditions include electronic monitoring, requirements to be at certain places at certain times, requirements to remain in certain places, prohibitions on being in certain areas, and any “such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”184 The Government’s rationale was explained by the Minister in Public Bill Committee proceedings: Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, they are granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subjected to while on immigration bail. The new clause will end that disparity in the powers available to protect the public from the particular migrant who poses a threat. It also makes crystal clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail.185
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government reiterates its intention to use clause 43 conditions, such as electronic monitoring and curfews, to manage foreign nationals who pose a threat and cannot be immediately removed, ensuring decisions are made on a case-by-case basis with proportionality analysis.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
143
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The current restrictions, set out in section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, permit restrictions to be placed on individuals such as restrictions on the right to work and study, requirements to report to immigration officers, and residency requirements. The introduction of the power to impose curfews, exclusions, confinement, and …
Read more
The current restrictions, set out in section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, permit restrictions to be placed on individuals such as restrictions on the right to work and study, requirements to report to immigration officers, and residency requirements. The introduction of the power to impose curfews, exclusions, confinement, and electronic monitoring go far beyond the existing permissible conditions. The nature of these restrictions may engage Article 5. Although persons will not be imprisoned, measures that are considered so severe as to be destructive of a person’s liberty are likely to engage Article 5.186 These provisions also engage the right to private life (Article 8) as individuals may be subjected to restrictions on where they can 184 Clause 43 185 Hansard HC, Public Bill Committee, 9 th Sitting, 13 March 2025 : Col 265 per Minister for Border Security and Asylum 186 Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2007] UKHL 45; Secretary of State for the Home Department v AP [2010] UKSC 24 52 live, who they can associate with, and where they can go. It should be noted that Article 8 cannot be relied on in order to complain of personal, social, psychological and economic suffering which is a foreseeable consequence of one’s own actions, such as the commission of a criminal offence or similar misconduct.187 Depending on the nature of the conditions, other Convention rights might also be engaged such as the right to freedom of assembly and association (Article 11).
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges that the conditions may be invasive and engage ECHR rights, stating that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis with proportionality analysis to ensure compatibility. It maintains that these measures are necessary for safely managing individuals.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
145
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle MP, said during the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons that: “The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat …
Read more
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Dame Angela Eagle MP, said during the Bill’s passage through the House of Commons that: “The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety”.189 Clause 43 is much broader than this intention.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's observation that Clause 43 is broader than the Minister's stated intention, responding by reiterating that the powers will be used judiciously, on a case-by-case basis with proportionality analysis, for individuals posing a threat.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
146
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Amnesty describes this as an “extraordinary overreach of power”.190 Public Law Project notes that these restrictions are akin to those imposed on national security grounds (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures), and that the same types of restrictions would be used against those who have lawful immigration status.191
Read more
Amnesty describes this as an “extraordinary overreach of power”.190 Public Law Project notes that these restrictions are akin to those imposed on national security grounds (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures), and that the same types of restrictions would be used against those who have lawful immigration status.191
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the concerns regarding the invasive nature of the conditions, stating that these measures are necessary to safely manage individuals and will be applied on a case-by-case basis with a proportionality analysis to ensure ECHR compatibility.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
149
Recommendation
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
recommendation The requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions, and curfews, should be set out clearly on the face of the Bill and adequately circumscribed. In order to reflect the Government’s intentions as stated by the Minister, the exercise of these powers should be …
Read more
recommendation The requirements in clause 43 for imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring, geographical exclusions, and curfews, should be set out clearly on the face of the Bill and adequately circumscribed. In order to reflect the Government’s intentions as stated by the Minister, the exercise of these powers should be expressly limited to cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. Given the potential severity of interferences with the rights of individuals with any form of limited leave to remain, the exercise of these powers should be subject to judicial scrutiny. (See Amendment 17, Annex). 193 JCHR, Accountability for Daesh crimes, para 51 194 International Development Committee, Protection not permission: The UK’s role in upholding international humanitarian law and supporting the safe delivery of humanitarian aid, para 51 54 7 Treating certain crimes as “particularly serious”
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the need for conditions under Clause 43 to be imposed only in serious cases where individuals pose a threat, confirming this is the current intention and that decisions will be subject to proportionality analysis and judicial review.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
150
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Clause 48 was added by way of Government amendment at Report stage in the Commons. It provides for the classification of certain sexual offences as “particularly serious” when determining exclusions from the protection against refoulement, regardless of period of imprisonment. The relevant offences are sexual offences under Schedule 3 of …
Read more
Clause 48 was added by way of Government amendment at Report stage in the Commons. It provides for the classification of certain sexual offences as “particularly serious” when determining exclusions from the protection against refoulement, regardless of period of imprisonment. The relevant offences are sexual offences under Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act (SOA) 2003, which are the specified sex offences for which an individual will be subject to notification requirements. The Government’s intention is to “ensure that those who commit sexual offences and are considered to be a danger to the community of the UK are not able to benefit from refugee status.”195 The operational effect of the clause would be to make a relevant individual ineligible for refugee status under the Immigration Rules.196 Those who face exclusion from protection can rebut the presumption that they are a danger to the community. Compatibility with Refugee Convention
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the committee's description of clause 48, reaffirming its commitment to classifying certain sexual offences as "particularly serious" to ensure that those convicted of such crimes do not benefit from refugee status.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
151
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The Refugee Convention, in its Article 33(2), allows for refugees to be excluded from non-refoulement protections where there are reasonable grounds for regarding them as a danger to the security of the UK or where if, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, they constitute a danger to the …
Read more
The Refugee Convention, in its Article 33(2), allows for refugees to be excluded from non-refoulement protections where there are reasonable grounds for regarding them as a danger to the security of the UK or where if, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, they constitute a danger to the community in the UK.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the committee's reference to Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention and reiterates its commitment to classifying sexual offences as "particularly serious" to exclude offenders from protection status.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
152
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
For these purposes, a particularly serious crime, in domestic law, is a crime for which a person is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months.197 The threshold is therefore amended by this provision in the Bill - a person could be excluded from protection under the …
Read more
For these purposes, a particularly serious crime, in domestic law, is a crime for which a person is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months.197 The threshold is therefore amended by this provision in the Bill - a person could be excluded from protection under the Refugee Convention for a conviction of any of these offences, irrespective of the length of the sentence. In theory, this could mean that more people could be excluded from the protection of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. 195 Supplementary ECHR memorandum, para 13 196 By way of refusal of asylum under paragraph 336; revocation under paragraph 338A; or exclusion from humanitarian protection under paragraph 339D 197 Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, as amended by section 38 NABA 55
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the Committee's observation that the clause will classify certain sexual offences as 'particularly serious' for refugee convention purposes, affirming its commitment to prevent those convicted of such crimes from receiving protection.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
154
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
In the supplementary ECHR memorandum published by the Government, it is noted that an individual affected by this amendment “would still be able to rely on Article 2 or 3 rights, if they faced a real risk of persecution, but their claim for refugee status would not be accepted.”199 The …
Read more
In the supplementary ECHR memorandum published by the Government, it is noted that an individual affected by this amendment “would still be able to rely on Article 2 or 3 rights, if they faced a real risk of persecution, but their claim for refugee status would not be accepted.”199 The Government also notes in its supplementary ECHR memorandum that this provision is likely to engage the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR), but that this measure is “necessary in interests of the public”, and will be “exercised proportionately”, given that, according to the Government, individuals will be able to “argue against the presumptions made by the state regarding the seriousness of their offence, and the danger that they pose to the community.”41
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the committee's reported understanding of clause 48, reaffirming its commitment to classifying certain sexual offences as "particularly serious" to exclude offenders from refugee protection under Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
155
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The rebuttable presumption is an important safeguard to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community. The Convention also provides a safeguard as the principle of non-refoulement under certain rights, such as Articles 2 and 3, provides an …
Read more
The rebuttable presumption is an important safeguard to give refugees the opportunity to argue against the seriousness of their offence and the danger they pose to the community. The Convention also provides a safeguard as the principle of non-refoulement under certain rights, such as Articles 2 and 3, provides an absolute bar to removing or returning an individual to face real risks to life or real risks of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the committee's support for the clause that classifies certain sexual offences as 'particularly serious' under the Refugee Convention. They reiterate their commitment to tackling sexual offences and ensuring that those convicted of such crimes do not benefit from protection status.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
156
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
conclusion Exclusions from the protections of the Refugee Convention are permitted in circumstances where individuals have committed “particularly serious crimes”. We acknowledge that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important measure, and we support the Government’s intention to ensure that dangerous sex offenders …
Read more
conclusion Exclusions from the protections of the Refugee Convention are permitted in circumstances where individuals have committed “particularly serious crimes”. We acknowledge that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important measure, and we support the Government’s intention to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the Refugee Convention. 198 UNHCR Observations on the New Plan for Immigration policy statement of the Government of the United Kingdom (May 2021) para 22 199 Supplementary ECHR memorandum 56 8 Serious Crime Prevention Orders
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the committee's support for the clause classifying sexual offences as 'particularly serious' for Refugee Convention exclusions, reiterating its commitment to preventing dangerous sex offenders from benefiting from protection status.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
157
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The Bill provides power to impose electronic monitoring as a requirement of a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO). It also provides for the power to impose interim SCPOs whilst an application for a final order is pending. SCPOs, introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2007, are civil preventative orders that …
Read more
The Bill provides power to impose electronic monitoring as a requirement of a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO). It also provides for the power to impose interim SCPOs whilst an application for a final order is pending. SCPOs, introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2007, are civil preventative orders that can impose tailored prohibitions, restrictions and requirements on a person for a period of up to five years to prevent or disrupt their involvement in serious crime. SCPOs may be imposed where a court is satisfied that a person has been involved in serious crime, and it has reasonable grounds to believe that the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime. There is an indicative list of ‘serious offences’ in Schedule 1 to the 2007 Act for which an SCPO can be applied. Serious offences include fraud, money laundering, terrorism, drug and people trafficking. Examples of measures that can be included in an SCPO are also set out in the 2007 Act, they include restrictions on movement, association with others, phone and social media usage and finances.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government clarified that electronic monitoring in Serious Crime Prevention Orders is for monitoring compliance, not punishment. It reiterated that courts apply the 'appropriate' test compatibly with the ECHR, considering all facts and safeguards like judicial scrutiny and data protection.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
163
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Clause 53 introduces a new interim SCPO (ISCPO) which would allow the High Court to impose requirements on the subject while the full application is pending. The test for imposing an ISCPO is whether the court “considers it just to do so”. The aim of this provision is to provide …
Read more
Clause 53 introduces a new interim SCPO (ISCPO) which would allow the High Court to impose requirements on the subject while the full application is pending. The test for imposing an ISCPO is whether the court “considers it just to do so”. The aim of this provision is to provide for the immediate mitigation of potential risks and prevent harm to the public before criminal activities take place.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's description of the Interim SCPO (ISCPO) and defends the 'just to do so' test, arguing it allows swift action against public risk. It states a stricter threshold would delay vital interventions and highlights rights of appeal for individuals.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
2
Recommendation
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
We support the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, we are concerned that the precursor offences, as currently drafted, create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim, and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The …
Read more
We support the Government’s intention to disrupt and deter organised immigration crime and to safeguard life. However, we are concerned that the precursor offences, as currently drafted, create uncertainty, extend beyond the Government’s stated legitimate aim, and risk inadvertently criminalising persons who ought to be protected from criminal penalty. The scope is broad, the thresholds are low, and the penalties are high. To ensure compliance with the Refugee Convention, the Smuggling Protocol, and the Council of Europe Convention Against Trafficking, we propose a series of amendments. (Conclusion, Paragraph 50)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the committee's sentiment to protect vulnerable groups but defends the current drafting of the new offences, stating they are tailored to be proportionate and effective in disrupting organised immigration crime and protecting those exploited. They indicate that amendments could pose risks to …
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
10
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Clause 37 of the Bill would repeal SORA in its entirety. This is consistent with the current Government’s manifesto commitment to abandon the Rwanda policy. Repeal of SORA will remove the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. (Conclusion, Paragraph 93)
Read more
Clause 37 of the Bill would repeal SORA in its entirety. This is consistent with the current Government’s manifesto commitment to abandon the Rwanda policy. Repeal of SORA will remove the significant incompatibilities identified in the predecessor JCHR’s report. (Conclusion, Paragraph 93)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomes the committee's support for the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024, noting that the Act served no practical purpose and its repeal aligns with the government's commitment to abandon the Rwanda policy.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
16
Recommendation
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
The Government has provided for the retrospective validation of fees charged without any statutory basis. We ask the Government to clarify its justification for the retrospective validation of these fees. (Conclusion, Paragraph 141) 63 Conditions on leave and bail
Read more
The Government has provided for the retrospective validation of fees charged without any statutory basis. We ask the Government to clarify its justification for the retrospective validation of these fees. (Conclusion, Paragraph 141) 63 Conditions on leave and bail
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government maintains its position that the retrospective validation of fees is justified and proportionate, citing compelling public interest reasons and asserting compatibility with Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. They provided a detailed legal justification for their stance as requested.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice
18
Conclusion
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Bord…
Acknowledged
Exclusions from the protections of the Refugee Convention are permitted in circumstances where individuals have committed “particularly serious crimes”. We acknowledge that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important measure, and we support the Government’s intention to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot …
Read more
Exclusions from the protections of the Refugee Convention are permitted in circumstances where individuals have committed “particularly serious crimes”. We acknowledge that the exclusion of individuals who pose a danger to the community is an important measure, and we support the Government’s intention to ensure that dangerous sex offenders cannot benefit from the protections of the Refugee Convention. (Conclusion, Paragraph 156) Serious Crime Prevention Orders
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government welcomed the Committee's support for the clause which classifies certain sexual offences as 'particularly serious' for Refugee Convention purposes. The government reaffirmed its commitment to tackling sexual offences and ensuring dangerous offenders do not benefit from protection status.
Read full response →
Ministry of Justice