Source · Select Committees · Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 97
97
Rejected
The JCHR’s predecessor committee raised concerns in relation to some of the above-mentioned provisions.
Conclusion
The JCHR’s predecessor committee raised concerns in relation to some of the above-mentioned provisions. We remain concerned by section 12, section 29, section 59 and section 62 IMA. Section 12 IMA: immigration detention
Government Response Summary
The government rejected the committee's concerns about sections 12, 29, 59, and 62 of the Illegal Migration Act, asserting their operational benefit and ECHR compliance. It outlined how each section includes safeguards or is consistent with international obligations.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The Government has retained sections 12, 29, 59, and 62 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, asserting their operational benefit and compliance with ECHR/international obligations. Regarding Section 12 (immigration detention), it provides a clear legislative framework for operational detention decisions, affirming the Home Secretary's role in determining reasonable detention periods. This is subject to judicial oversight and compliant with Article 5 ECHR, which allows state authorities discretion. Regarding Section 29 (disqualification from modern slavery protections for offenders), it allows for mandatory consideration of disqualification on public order grounds for foreign national offenders, unless compelling circumstances exist. This provision is consistent with Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking and Article 4 of the ECHR, as discretion and a Section 45 defence (Modern Slavery Act 2015) remain. Regarding Section 59 (expansion of inadmissibility provisions), if commenced, it would broaden inadmissibility to claims from a wider list of countries. However, existing "exceptional circumstances" provisions allow for fact-sensitive assessments, and country safety is continuously reviewed. The Secretary of State's power to add countries is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Regarding Section 62 (credibility assessment for failure to provide access to devices), it expands existing provisions, but decision-makers must still consider a claimant's credibility in the round, taking into account all circumstances and any mitigation provided, ensuring a holistic assessment.