Recommendation 44

Making human rights claims “non-suspensive” can only be consistent with our human rights obligations if pursuing those claims from the destination state is viable. We are concerned that this has not been established for the states deemed safe for removals. The threshold required to establish a suspensive claim based on serious harm under the Bill, and the requirement for “compelling evidence” to support it, puts at risk of removal those who have genuine human rights reasons why they should not be removed. Furthermore, allowing the Secretary of State to redefine “serious and irreversible harm” by regulations opens up the possibility of increasing disparity between the protections against refoulement in domestic law and those to which the UK is committed in international law, including the ECHR. We urge the Government to reconsider its decision to make human rights claims non-suspensive, and the extremely high threshold imposed to establish serious harm suspensive claims. The meaning of “serious and irreversible harm” should not be open to amendment by regulations. Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill (see Annex, Amendment 34).