Twelfth Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders

Home Office data shows that approximately 65% of asylum applicants awaiting initial decisions had been waiting more than six months and that the average time to make an initial decision is now more than a year. This is clearly concerning. Delays can have a significant adverse impact on the wellbeing and mental health of asylum applicants (which is protected by Articles 3 and 8 ECHR), and whilst awaiting decisions they are generally not permitted to work, begin the family reunification process and cannot access the entitlements guaranteed in the Refugee Convention. To reduce the adverse impacts on individuals awaiting decisions the Home Office should give serious consideration to the UNHCR’s recommendations to introduce a triaging and prioritization system, simplify case processing procedures and frontload the asylum system and make clear how it plans to streamline and shorten the asylum decision-making process.

We support the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s recommendation that a new published service standard must be introduced as a matter of urgency. That service standard should set realistic targets which take into account the human rights of applicants and the severe impacts that lengthy waits for decisions can have.

As recommended by Wendy Williams in her Windrush Lessons Learned Review, Home Office decision-making should be based on the principles of “fairness, rigour and humanity”.

The Home Office must establish why the proportion of initial decisions found to be flawed has been gradually increasing and what they plan to do to improve the quality of asylum decision-making. This plan must include providing adequate support and training to staff who are handling difficult cases on a day-by-day basis and may be suffering from ‘compassion fatigue’. The Home Office should promote a human rights culture where the rights and dignity of asylum applicants is at the heart of decision- making, as opposed to a culture in which staff are treated as and perceive of themselves as ‘gatekeepers’ of the asylum system. (Paragraph 46) Differential treatment

There is no requirement under the Refugee Convention for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The Bill should not establish in domestic law an interpretation of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention that explicitly or implicitly says the opposite.

Clause 36(4) would require an interpretation of Article 31 that removes its protections from a refugee who commits an offence while leaving the UK for another destination. This is inconsistent with an interpretation of the Refugee Convention that accepts asylum seekers are not required to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It is also hard to see how the UK benefits from prosecuting individuals who want to leave the UK to claim asylum elsewhere. (Paragraph 74) Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 71 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders

Clause 36 requires amendment to ensure that it does not contradict the protection Article 31 provides to asylum seekers who have passed through other countries on their way to the UK or are passing through the UK on their way to their destination.

We are unable to see how the duty under the UNCRC to act in the best interests of the child and to avoid discrimination can be met if Group 2 refugee children are exposed to reduced status, restrictions on family reunion and restrictions on access to state support.

Clause 11 would allow for individuals who have been recognised as refugees to be given inferior treatment, based on the way in which they came to the UK. We consider this to be inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, which does not require asylum seekers to wait to be selected for resettlement programmes and does not require them to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The proposed differential treatment also appears likely to be inconsistent with the right to private and family life under Article 8 ECHR and the prohibition on discrimination under Article 14 ECHR. At a time when there is already an unprecedented backlog of asylum claims, these changes would make the asylum decision-making process longer, more complicated and open to further appeals.

Clause 11 should be removed from the Bill.

It is imperative that the Government learns from the poor treatment of asylum seekers housed in former military barracks. If accommodation centres are to be used to house those awaiting asylum decisions and appeals or awaiting removal from the UK the conditions must ensure that residents are free to come and go, treated with respect, provided with adequate access to healthcare and legal advice and not prevented from mixing with the rest of society. (Paragraph 91) Inadmissibility and offshore processing

While an inadmissibility regime is not in itself inconsistent with the Refugee Convention and ECHR, there are numerous ways in which the clauses in the Bill do not provide the safeguards necessary to ensure compliance. The threshold for establishing a connection with a safe third state is too low. The standards against which the safety of a third state is judged are insufficient.

Clause 15 should be amended to ensure that claims cannot be declared inadmissible on the basis of the Home Office’s view that it would have been reasonable to expect the claimant to have claimed elsewhere. The clause also requires amendment to prevent asylum seekers being removed to countries other than the one with which they are considered to have a connection. The definition of safe third country must ensure that the state in question provides effective protection against human rights abuses and access to an effective asylum system that fully complies with the Refugee Convention.

Suspending an asylum claim for 6 months when there is no real prospect of it being considered by another state amounts to an unjustified delay. It does not appear to 72 Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders be consistent with complying with the Refugee Convention ‘in good faith’. It also places the mental and physical health of vulnerable asylum seekers at risk, potentially resulting in violations of Article 8 or even Article 3 ECHR.

The Bill should be amended to prohibit any asylum claimant being provided with a notice of intent or assessed as inadmissible unless a return arrangement has already been put in place with the relevant third country.

The UK risks doing damage to the shared responsibility that underpins the Refugee Convention if it proceeds with plans for the offshore processing of asylum claims. The Bill should be amended to remove the power to remove an asylum seeker from the UK while their claim is pending, unless compliance with human rights standards, including the Refugee Convention, in any future arrangements can be unequivocally guaranteed. (Paragraph 122) Interpretation of the Refugee Convention

The Bill includes requirements as to how the Refugee Convention must be interpreted. This risks the UK being out of step with established interpretations of Refugee Convention obligations, reducing the protection against human rights abuses that the Refugee Convention provides.

The introduction of a split and raised standard of proof for establishing a well- founded fear of persecution runs contrary to well-established interpretation of the Refugee Convention and creates unnecessary additional complexity in asylum decision-making. In light of the difficulties that genuine asylum seekers already face proving their claims, it would increase the risk of individuals being wrongly refused asylum and removed to face violations of fundamental human rights. It is important that a legitimate desire to ensure that refugee status is not given to individuals who do not meet the definition of refugee does not support a ‘culture of disbelief’ that puts genuine refugees at risk.

Clause 31 should be amended to confirm that the standard of proof for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution remains a composite standard of ‘reasonable likelihood’.

Despite the presumption that a person who has committed such a crime amounts to a ‘danger to the community’ remaining rebuttable, the proposal to lower the threshold for what constitutes a ‘particularly serious crime’ to any offence receiving a 12-month sentence would not be consistent with the language of Article 33(2) or with the humanitarian purpose of the Refugee Convention. The combination of the new threshold with provisions expressly denying an individual the opportunity to prove that he has not committed a ‘particularly serious’ offence would ‘expand the scope’ of Article 33(2) and ‘correspondingly weaken the principle of non- refoulement itself’. The Bill requires amendment to remove the lowering of this threshold.

Despite the presumption that a person who has committed such a crime amounts to a ‘danger to the community’ remaining rebuttable, the proposal to lower the threshold for what constitutes a ‘particularly serious crime’ to any offence receiving Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 73 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders a 12-month sentence would not be consistent with the language of Article 33(2) or with the humanitarian purpose of the Refugee Convention. The combination of the new threshold with provisions expressly denying an individual the opportunity to prove that he has not committed a ‘particularly serious’ offence would ‘expand the scope’ of Article 33(2) and ‘correspondingly weaken the principle of non-refoulement itself’. The Bill requires amendment to remove the lowering of this threshold. (Paragraph 142) Procedural changes

It is crucial that decision-makers recognise the many legitimate reasons why asylum seekers may struggle to prove evidence in support of their claims within tight deadlines.

We welcome the proposal to provide additional legal aid to persons in receipt of priority removal notices. The Government must ensure, however, that there are sufficient qualified immigration practitioners with legal aid contracts available to provide this additional support.

It is important that Home Office decision-makers and tribunals are free to carry out global assessments of credibility.

The combined effect of the provisions on credibility and weight, which emphasise procedural failure as damaging to the substantive asylum claim, is to increase the risk that genuine refugees will be denied asylum because they were wrongly disbelieved, or their evidence wrongly given minimal weight. This would expose people to persecution and human rights abuses.

The Bill should be amended to remove the provisions that emphasise damage to credibility and weight of evidence as a result of delay. If the Government is intent on penalising late submission of evidence, it should only introduce penalties that do not impact on consideration of the substantive asylum claim. At the very least, the Bill must be amended to clarify that a failure to meet a deadline ‘may’ be damaging to the applicant’s credibility or to the weight given to evidence, rather than that it must.

If asylum seekers are to be detained, it should be for the shortest period possible. We also agree with the Court of Appeal that speed and efficiency must not trump justice and fairness.

The proposed accelerated detained appeals process would significantly contract the timeframe for the asylum application and appeals procedure. This has implications for the ability of those genuinely fleeing persecution to be able to present their claims effectively, potentially denying them the sanctuary to which they are entitled in international law. In the absence of clear safeguards that would restrict the use of the accelerated detained appeals process to appeals that are clearly unfounded and without merit, we consider that the process poses too great a risk of unfair decisions resulting in exposure to human rights violations.

Clause 26 requires substantial amendment to limit the cases that are brought within the accelerated detained appeals process, to ensure that cases are removed from the 74 Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders process where the interests of justice and fairness requires it and to ensure that the process itself is not so accelerated as to risk unfair decision making and consequential human rights violations. If this is not possible, clause 26 should be removed from the Bill. (Paragraph 172) Age assessments

The Government has indicated that it intends to retain the benefit of the doubt for certain age-disputed persons, but that it intends to lower the threshold for giving the benefit of the doubt (which is currently extended to those who are assessed as being under 25 years old). Whilst the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of BF Eritrea gives the Government leeway to lower this threshold, it must be borne in mind that there are severe consequences of mistakenly treating a child as an adult, which would amount to a denial of that child’s rights to education, support, and accommodation. Any lowering of the threshold increases the risk of wrongly identifying a child as an adult and unlawfully detaining a child in immigration detention. Whilst it is a burden on resources to give young adults the benefit of the doubt and treat them as children, a lower threshold may result in more children being placed into unsafe accommodation with inadequate safeguarding and no access to services such as education, to which they are legally entitled. Depending on the circumstances, treating a child as an adult may also result in trauma which may reach the threshold of violating Article 3 ECHR. It is imperative that the threshold test minimises as far as possible the risk that children will be misidentified as adults and denied their rights.

Whilst centralisation of age assessments may not necessarily be adverse for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, it is difficult to scrutinise the Government’s plans for the new NAAB given the lack of detail contained within the Bill. It will be crucial for this new body to adhere to the guidance set out in case law and to ensure that the best interests of the child are core to its functioning.

The power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out specified scientific methods for assessing age is concerning. A number of medical organisations have voiced opposition to this policy on the basis that such methods are inaccurate and involve a wide margin of error. If this is the case, then the use of such methods may not improve the accuracy of decision-making when compared to a holistic assessment undertaken by a social worker. A holistic assessment would avoid the use of any physical (and potentially invasive) procedures which may not be appropriate, and may even cause trauma depending on the nature of the procedure and the experience of the individual concerned. We are not convinced there is any justification for the use of scientific methods.

It is not clear to us what will constitute a reasonable ground for refusing consent. Clear guidelines must be published setting out the test that will be applied. Further, we are concerned that the threat of adverse inferences may apply pressure to the individual concerned to consent to an age assessment, particularly a young child, who may fear the consequences of refusing to consent to a procedure. There are many reasons why a child may not wish to be subject to a scientific procedure, but they may not be able to communicate the reasons for this. Even if they can articulate Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 75 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders their reasons, it is not clear whether the Home Office will consider their concerns to be “reasonable”. We suggest that refusal to consent to scientific procedures should not be taken into account when assessing the credibility of an age-disputed person who may be a child.

The Government must ensure holistic assessments are undertaken and will not be able to rely upon scientific methods as a replacement for holistic assessments. The use of scientific methods as set out in any regulations in the future will need to be scrutinised to ensure that they do not breach the right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR) and the right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR). If it is the case that scientific methods will not offer any greater accuracy than the current holistic methodology, the use of such methods may not constitute necessary and proportionate incursions of the right to privacy. Further, we suggest that where holistic assessments already exist as an alternative, it would not be in the best interests of the child to subject them to scientific procedures. (Paragraph 221) Deprivation of citizenship orders

Whilst it is inevitable that serving notice of deprivation of citizenship orders will present challenges in some cases, it is disproportionate to remove the obligation to give notice entirely in the five specified circumstances. Bearing in mind the public law principle of fairness, it is questionable that an uncommunicated administrative decision of such a grave nature, with such severe consequences for the individual affected, should bind an individual who is being stripped of their rights. We suggest that Clause 9 should be deleted from the Bill. If Clause 9 is to be retained in the Bill, at a minimum, the Secretary of State should be required to take reasonable steps to give notice of deprivation of citizenship orders.

As the Supreme Court has noted, to comply with the procedural requirements of the ECHR, an appellant must be able to challenge the legality of the measure taken against him, and the right of appeal must be meaningful and effective. In circumstances where an individual does not know they are subject to a deprivation of citizenship order, the right of appeal is meaningless, particularly where time limits will be applied. Applying time limits to an appeal against an uncommunicated deprivation of citizenship order risks violating the right to a fair trial as protected by Article 6. If clause 9 is to be retained in the Bill, we suggest that it would be fairer and clearer to include provision that the time limits only start running from the date of knowledge of the deprivation of citizenship order.

Article 6(1) of the ECHR requires that, in the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The enactment of retrospective legislation which affects the results of pending proceedings may infringe Article 6(1), unless there are compelling grounds of general interest. It is, prima facie, contrary to the rule of law for the state to interfere in current legal proceedings in order to influence the outcome of those proceedings in a manner favourable to itself. The Government is using Clause 9 to retrospectively validate unlawful deprivation of citizenship orders, following the High Court’s decision that the relevant regulation concerning the giving of notice is ultra vires. It is possible 76 Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders that there are pending legal proceedings challenging deprivation of citizenship orders on the ground that notice was given by making a record on the Home Office file. Clause 9 would effectively remove a ground of appeal from these claimants. If clause 9 affects the results of pending legal proceedings, this may infringe the fair trial rights of the appellants. If clause 9 is to be retained, we suggest that it should not have retrospective effect, to avoid the risk of infringing Article 6 in the vent of pending legal proceedings.

It is inevitable that cases concerning deprivation of citizenship orders may present practical difficulties with regard to serving notice. Individuals who leave the jurisdiction, travel to conflict zones, reside in refugee camps, and have no known means of communication, will be virtually impossible to locate and serve with notice. It is reasonable that the requirements for the Secretary of State to give notice to such individuals should take these challenges into account. However, there are three key problems with clause 9: it allows for far too much discretion by the Secretary of State to avoid giving notice of deprivation of citizenship orders; it renders the right of appeal meaningless, and it retrospectively validates unlawful deprivation of citizenship orders which may interfere with pending legal proceedings. Given the severe infringement of rights resulting from deprivation of citizenship orders, it is imperative that robust safeguards are in place when this extreme executive power is used. As set out above, we suggest that Clause 9 is removed from the Bill.

If clause 9 is retained in the Bill we suggest it must be amended to: a) place obligations on the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to give notice of deprivation of citizenship orders; b) remove the broad exemptions of “national security”, “foreign relations” and “public interest” which allow the Secretary of State to avoid giving notice; c) ensure the right of appeal is meaningful by providing that time limits do not run until the individual has been notified of the deprivation decision; and d) remove the retrospective validation of unlawful deprivation of citizenship orders. (Paragraph 248) Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 77 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders Amendments Amendment 1: Clause 36: ensuring proper interpretation of protection provided by Article 31 of the Refugee Convention Page 37, line 18, leave out from “Kingdom” to “that country” and insert— “for a substantial period and were given or could reasonably have expected to have been given protection under the Refugee Convention in that other country” Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the Joint Committee on Human Right’s recommendation that clause 36 be amended to ensure that it does not contradict the protection Article 31 provides to asylum seekers who have passed through other countries on their way to the UK. Amendment 2: Clause 36(4): confirming Article 31 of the Refugee Convention applies to asylum seekers passing through UK Page 37, line 37, leave out subsection (4) Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the Joint Committee on Human Right’s recommendation that clause 36 be amended to ensure that it does not contradict the protection Article 31 provides to asylum seekers who are passing through the UK on their way to their destination. Amendment 3: Clause 36(5): confirming that domestic law reflection of Article 31 is consistent Page 37, line 41, leave out subsection (5) Explanation: this amendment would ensure that the criminal defence in domestic law that is designed to reflect Article 31 of the Refugee Convention would remain consistent with amendments 1 and 2 above. Amendment 4: Clause 11: removing differentiation policy Page 13, line 31, leave out Clause 11 Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the power to treat recognised refugees differently depending on whether they came directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened; presented themselves without delay to the authorities; and, where relevant, could show good cause for illegal entry or presence, should be removed from the Bill. Amendment 5: Clause 15: redefining safe third State Page 18, leave out lines 26 to 38 and insert— “(a) there is not a real risk that the claimant will experience in that State: 78 Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (i) persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; or (ii) violations of their fundamental human rights; (b) there is not a real risk that the claimant be sent from that State to another State: (i) otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention, or (ii) in contravention of their rights under the Human Rights Convention; or (iii) where there is a real risk of their fundamental human rights being violated. (c) that State provides, in law and practice, and the claimant is entitled to avail himself of: (i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers; (ii) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures; (iii) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure; (iv) where an asylum seeker is found to be in need of international protection, a grant of refugee status or other protective status that provides as a minimum all the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2–34 of the Refugee Convention.” Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the definition of ‘safe third State’ must ensure that the state in question provides effective protection against human rights abuses and access to an effective asylum system that fully complies with the Refugee Convention. Amendment 6: Clause 15: removing ability to send inadmissible claimant to state to which they have no connection Page 18, leave out lines 42 to 45 Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that asylum seekers should not be removed to a safe third State other than the one with which they are considered to have a connection. Amendment 7: Clause 15: clarifying when the Secretary of State must consider a prima facie inadmissible claim Page 19, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert— “An asylum claim shall not be declared inadmissible, and an asylum claim that has been declared inadmissible shall nevertheless be considered under the immigration rules – (a) if no formal, legally binding and public return arrangements are in place between the United Kingdom and the State to which the claimant has a connection; and/or (b) if it is unlikely to be possible to remove the claimant to a safe third State within a reasonable period of the declaration of inadmissibility;” Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 79 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that claims should not be assessed as inadmissible unless a return arrangement has already been put in place with the relevant safe third State. Amendment 8: Clause 16: limiting bases of connection to safe third State Page 19, leave out lines 34 to 42 Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that asylum claims should not be declared inadmissible on the basis of the Home Office’s view that it would have been reasonable to expect the claimant to have claimed elsewhere. Amendment 9: Clause 28: excising power to remove asylum seekers whose claims are pending Page 33, line 18, leave out Clause 28 Explanation this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to take away the power to remove asylum seekers from the UK while their asylum claims are still pending. Amendment 10: Clause 31: retaining recognised test for well-founded fear of persecution (1) Page 34, line 45, leave out subsection (2) and (3) Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the standard of proof for an asylum seeker to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention should remain a composite standard of ‘reasonable likelihood’. Amendment 11: Clause 31: retaining recognised test for well-founded fear of persecution (2) Page 35, line 20, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— “(a) they would be persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and” Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the standard of proof for an asylum seeker to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention should remain a composite standard of ‘reasonable likelihood’. Amendment 12: Clause 37: removing lowered threshold for “particularly serious crime” Page 38, line 16, leave out subsections (3) to (13) 80 Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the threshold in respect of what constitutes a “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention should not be lowered. Amendment 13: Clause 18: removing damage to credibility arising from delay Page 22, line 26, leave out subsection (4) Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the direction for decision makers to treat the provision of evidence on or after the date specified in an evidence notice as damaging to credibility. Amendment 14: Clause 21: removing damage to credibility arising from delay Page 25, line 29, leave out subsection (4) Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the direction for decision makers to treat the provision of evidence on or after the date specified in a priority removal notice as damaging to credibility. Amendment 15: Clause 25: removing damage to weight of evidence arising from delay Page 30, line 14, leave out Clause 25 Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the direction for decision makers to treat the provision of evidence on or after the date specified in an evidence notice or priority removal notice as damaging to the weight to be given to that evidence. Amendment 16: Clause 26: ensuring accelerated detained appeals process only used where fair and just Page 31, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) The Secretary of State may only certify a decision under this section if the Secretary of State is satisfied that: (a) any relevant appeal brought in relation to the decision would likely be disposed of expeditiously; and (b) any relevant appeal brought in relation to the decision could be resolved within the time limits set out in subsection (3) without giving rise to unfairness or injustice.” Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to limit the cases that are brought within the accelerated detained appeals process, to prevent unfairness or injustice arising. Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 81 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders Amendment 17: Clause 26: ensuring accelerated detained appeals process only used where fair and just Page 32, line 10, leave out subsection (5) and insert— “Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the First-tier Tribunal or (as the case may be) the Upper Tribunal must, if it is concerned that fairness or justice in an individual case cannot be provided within the accelerated detained appeal process, order that a relevant appeal is to cease to be an accelerated detained appeal.” Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that clause 26 should be amended to ensure that cases are removed from the accelerated detained appeals process where the interests of justice and fairness require it. Amendment 18: Clause 51: Use of scientific methods in age assessments Page 57, line 31, leave out subsections (6) and (7) Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that refusal to consent to scientific procedures to assess age should not be taken into account when assessing the credibility of an age-disputed person who may be a child. Amendment 19: Clause 9: Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship Page 11, line 26, leave out Clause 9 Explanation: this amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that clause 9 should be removed. 82 Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders Declaration of interests Lord Brabazon of Tara • No relevant interests to declare Lord Dubs • Former Chief Executive of the Refugee Council Lord Henley • No relevant interests to declare Baroness Ludford • No relevant interests to declare Baroness Massey of Darwen • No relevant interests to declare Lord Singh of Wimbledon • No relevant interests to declare Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Parts 1, 2 and 4) – Asylum, Home Office 83 Decision-Making, Age Assessments, and Deprivation of Citizenship Orders