Immigration and Asylum Bill
Tuesday 15th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 week, 5 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are now sitting in public in. The proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I would like to remind members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions.
In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters formally without debate. I first call the Minister to move the programme motions. Standing in their name, which was considered yesterday by the programming subcommittee for this bill.
In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters formally without debate. I first call the Minister to move the programme motions. Standing in their name, which was considered yesterday by the programming subcommittee for this bill.
09:26
09:26
09:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The question is the motion as on the amendment paper, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Copies of written evidence which the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room. I now call the Minister to move the motion about deliberating in private.
09:27
09:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
As many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now go into private session to discuss lines. We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Good morning to our witnesses. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with this bill? Thank you.
If any interests are particularly relevant to a member's questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time. We will now hear oral evidence from Eleanor Lyons, the independent anti-slavery commissioner. Doctor Will Prescott, head of research at Bright Blue, who will be joining via Zoom, and Vicki Tennant, UNHCR representative to the UK. We must stick to timings in the programme motion. The committee has agreed for this session. We have until 10:10.
Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? Miss Tennant, can we start with you?
If any interests are particularly relevant to a member's questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time. We will now hear oral evidence from Eleanor Lyons, the independent anti-slavery commissioner. Doctor Will Prescott, head of research at Bright Blue, who will be joining via Zoom, and Vicki Tennant, UNHCR representative to the UK. We must stick to timings in the programme motion. The committee has agreed for this session. We have until 10:10.
Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? Miss Tennant, can we start with you?
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
09:30
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Two questions, if I may. Doctor Prescott, if the test of this bill is whether it results in fewer arrivals or more removals, what do you think is missing from the bill? And then secondly, Doctor Lyons. Well, Miss Lyons, the government says that last minute modern slavery claims have frustrated removals. Do you accept that this is an abuse of the system? And if you don't support the government's solution, what do you think the solution is to that issue?
09:31
09:31
09:31
09:31
09:31
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I'm muted. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. Because I don't seem to be able to unmute myself. I think it's sort of controlled. Well I mean look obviously reducing the number of irregular arrivals is you know you know, would would be well, I think welcome for all concerned. But I'm not sure necessarily that if we're looking at the modern slavery component specifically, which is sort of what I gather, what I gather this particular session is about.
I mean, we've got to remember that only a relatively small proportion of small boat arrivals go, you know, modern slavery claimants are actually victims of modern slavery. A lot of people, victims of modern slavery, do come here, sort of, you know, sometimes legally, sometimes through sort of false pretences. So I'm not necessarily sure that sort of tying the tying modern, tying a reduction in small boat arrivals to, to modern slavery is necessarily a positive is necessarily a positive thing.
I think you're sort of slightly muddling confusing two different issues there.
I mean, we've got to remember that only a relatively small proportion of small boat arrivals go, you know, modern slavery claimants are actually victims of modern slavery. A lot of people, victims of modern slavery, do come here, sort of, you know, sometimes legally, sometimes through sort of false pretences. So I'm not necessarily sure that sort of tying the tying modern, tying a reduction in small boat arrivals to, to modern slavery is necessarily a positive is necessarily a positive thing.
I think you're sort of slightly muddling confusing two different issues there.
09:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
For me. I think there's already safeguards in place to stop any misuse of the system. There's a high evidential threshold to be recognized and acknowledged as a victim of modern slavery. You have reasonable grounds, stages, conclusive grounds, stages. And of course, you can't self-refer to be a victim, you have to be spotted by a designated first responder organisation. Multiple select committees over the years haven't found evidence of widespread misuse of the system, and the latest Home Office data that's been provided is only on high risk deportation flights and represents less than 2% of the number of victims of modern slavery identified in this country last year.
So I don't think you do need new legislative solutions to.
So I don't think you do need new legislative solutions to.
09:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Deal in the observations. We haven't gone into detail on the all the aspects of the. The changes to the article eight that are. And we set it out in detail in the observations. I can say more about that if you'd like me to, but that's an area where we would urge another another look. And then the third area is in relation to article eight, our. The the interpretation of article eight that that that's embedded in the bill.
But we would just highlight how it could potentially impact refugee Family reunion. And bearing in mind that because of their displacement, often refugees have been separated from families in, in very chaotic and difficult circumstances. And one element of the bill that speaks to the presumption that one would normally have expected cohabitation with the the family member being being sponsored. That's a difficult one. In the refugee context. It's a difficult threshold to make, and particularly in view of the suspension of the the refugee family reunion, that bespoke route, we feel that that could have quite a harmful, harmful impact.
So those are the three the three areas. But clearly, I think, you know, one thing we would say is that the legislation is obviously only one part of the the the overall answer. And so the legislation also has to be looked at in the context of the wider policy reforms that are being pursued. And as UNHCR, we've been very pleased with the the level of engagement that we've had with the Home Office, as those reforms are, are seen through.
But we would just highlight how it could potentially impact refugee Family reunion. And bearing in mind that because of their displacement, often refugees have been separated from families in, in very chaotic and difficult circumstances. And one element of the bill that speaks to the presumption that one would normally have expected cohabitation with the the family member being being sponsored. That's a difficult one. In the refugee context. It's a difficult threshold to make, and particularly in view of the suspension of the the refugee family reunion, that bespoke route, we feel that that could have quite a harmful, harmful impact.
So those are the three the three areas. But clearly, I think, you know, one thing we would say is that the legislation is obviously only one part of the the the overall answer. And so the legislation also has to be looked at in the context of the wider policy reforms that are being pursued. And as UNHCR, we've been very pleased with the the level of engagement that we've had with the Home Office, as those reforms are, are seen through.
09:48
09:48
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair. Further questions to Vicky in your observations, you do say that the efficiency efficiency should not be pursued at the expense of procedural fairness, but also at the expense of access to protection and successful integration. You warn it could undermine the bill, could undermine conditions that support successful integration for those ultimately recognised as refugees. Could you outline how you think the bill in practice will will do that in terms of harming integration?
09:49
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I would I would say the key area is really the the area that I spoke to around the recovery of asylum support. We understand that what is envisaged is potentially up to £10,000 per person would be would be potentially recovered. So these are we're, we're, we would be in a situation where someone who has gone through a long and difficult set of experiences before arrival in, in the UK, who's then gone through the uncertainty of, of the, the asylum process, potentially for quite an extended period of time, unable to work, unable to start that process of getting back on, on, on their feet.
And so the, the prospect of just as one is getting, getting, getting started, getting into employment, starting to rebuild a refugee, starting to rebuild their lives, the prospect of being having to face that repayment of potentially quite a large sum of money really could could impede that. So that was the main element that we felt was, was relevant to, to, to integration. The article eight point is also relevant. The, the ability to reunite with, with family members is also, and I've seen this myself many times talking to, to asylum seekers and refugees, the the, the anguish and the disruption and the sense of something that is unfinished until one is actually reunited with with family and able to restart family life.
That's also an element that that is, is fairly fundamental to, to, to integration. So not only from the perspective of the, the refugee, but also from the perspective of, of the UK public and, and the, the community. We think that giving refugees that possibility to, to start afresh, move them as quickly as possible into the integration journey is, is important. And indeed, we know that's also one of the government's stated objectives.
And so the, the prospect of just as one is getting, getting, getting started, getting into employment, starting to rebuild a refugee, starting to rebuild their lives, the prospect of being having to face that repayment of potentially quite a large sum of money really could could impede that. So that was the main element that we felt was, was relevant to, to, to integration. The article eight point is also relevant. The, the ability to reunite with, with family members is also, and I've seen this myself many times talking to, to asylum seekers and refugees, the the, the anguish and the disruption and the sense of something that is unfinished until one is actually reunited with with family and able to restart family life.
That's also an element that that is, is fairly fundamental to, to, to integration. So not only from the perspective of the, the refugee, but also from the perspective of, of the UK public and, and the, the community. We think that giving refugees that possibility to, to start afresh, move them as quickly as possible into the integration journey is, is important. And indeed, we know that's also one of the government's stated objectives.
09:51
09:51
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you, chair. If I can ask all of you, given the concerns that you've raised, how likely is it that this bill is going to restore confidence in the asylum system, in your opinion? And if it isn't, what else would you like to see in it that would restore confidence to all of you? Maybe we can start with you, Vicky.
09:51
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think I'd go back to what I said, that, you know, legislation is only part of the the answer. So the there are elements of the bill and in in in particular, those that focus on trying to ensure the the quality, the efficiency, the sustainability of the the appeals process, for example, there are elements there that if they can be made to work successfully, could, could indeed contribute to, to, to building public confidence in the system.
And, and as UNHCR, as I said, we recognise very much that that public confidence is what underpins refugee convention, and we can all speak about the law. We can all speak about the Refugee Convention. But what is needed to deliver that in practice is, is, is public support for for welcoming refugees and public support for a well-functioning system. So what would be needed in in addition, I think there's, there's a lot of work already underway, particularly work on the first instance decision making process, making that quicker, improving the quality of, of decision making.
And that's something that we as UNHCR have been working directly with the Home Office on for, for some time. And I think we've been encouraged by the, the, the progress on, on that front. It's also about, as I said, the ability to remove people who are found not to be need in need of international protection. One can only do that if you have a well-functioning system , that there is confidence in that, that gets the decisions, that gets the decisions right.
Safe. Regular routes are a big part of well-functioning, fair system. And I think from the public perspective, what we see is consistently in in the polling and in the various surveys that have been done, is that the British people do want to welcome refugees. There is support for maintaining the UK as a place of of refuge. And the more that there are safe, regular, managed pathways to do that, the more that that can be can be delivered and can can, I think, sustain that confidence? That can't be a replacement for access to territorial asylum.
And I think that's where sometimes it can be very challenging. I think as UNHCR, we recognise very much the, the, the, the, the challenges that that the government faces in addressing the, the crossings across the channel. Nobody wants to see a situation where people are forced into dangerous journeys, and where the business is, is essentially controlled by, by smugglers and, and criminals. So what is really essential is that you have a good functioning system for considering asylum claims quickly, for removing people who are not in need of asylum, but also that involves the management of arrivals in a sensible way.
And we do think that partnership with international partners is an absolutely critical aspect of that, including with France, but also with international partners. And that's about cooperation upstream to to make sure that people have alternatives. So they're not they don't feel that they're in a situation where they have no alternative but to, to move onwards. But it's also about cooperation around the management of arrivals at, at UK borders and the, the international standards and the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights.
They provide that common baseline that that enable enables the UK to work with international partners in trying to find solutions to these to these common. I don't wish to cut you off. I ask the.
And, and as UNHCR, as I said, we recognise very much that that public confidence is what underpins refugee convention, and we can all speak about the law. We can all speak about the Refugee Convention. But what is needed to deliver that in practice is, is, is public support for for welcoming refugees and public support for a well-functioning system. So what would be needed in in addition, I think there's, there's a lot of work already underway, particularly work on the first instance decision making process, making that quicker, improving the quality of, of decision making.
And that's something that we as UNHCR have been working directly with the Home Office on for, for some time. And I think we've been encouraged by the, the, the progress on, on that front. It's also about, as I said, the ability to remove people who are found not to be need in need of international protection. One can only do that if you have a well-functioning system , that there is confidence in that, that gets the decisions, that gets the decisions right.
Safe. Regular routes are a big part of well-functioning, fair system. And I think from the public perspective, what we see is consistently in in the polling and in the various surveys that have been done, is that the British people do want to welcome refugees. There is support for maintaining the UK as a place of of refuge. And the more that there are safe, regular, managed pathways to do that, the more that that can be can be delivered and can can, I think, sustain that confidence? That can't be a replacement for access to territorial asylum.
And I think that's where sometimes it can be very challenging. I think as UNHCR, we recognise very much the, the, the, the, the challenges that that the government faces in addressing the, the crossings across the channel. Nobody wants to see a situation where people are forced into dangerous journeys, and where the business is, is essentially controlled by, by smugglers and, and criminals. So what is really essential is that you have a good functioning system for considering asylum claims quickly, for removing people who are not in need of asylum, but also that involves the management of arrivals in a sensible way.
And we do think that partnership with international partners is an absolutely critical aspect of that, including with France, but also with international partners. And that's about cooperation upstream to to make sure that people have alternatives. So they're not they don't feel that they're in a situation where they have no alternative but to, to move onwards. But it's also about cooperation around the management of arrivals at, at UK borders and the, the international standards and the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights.
They provide that common baseline that that enable enables the UK to work with international partners in trying to find solutions to these to these common. I don't wish to cut you off. I ask the.
09:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Yeah, very briefly, just touching upon part five of the bill in particular. I don't think we will restore confidence in the asylum system by weakening protections for victims of modern slavery. There are some parts of the bill which I welcome, including better advocacy for child victims of exploitation, devolving decision making pilots and work around tackling forced labour and supply chains. But that should go further than it does at the moment. But fundamentally, this bill does make it harder for safeguarding professionals to identify victims of exploitation in communities across the country, including child victims and UK national victims.
And I don't think that does restore public confidence in the system. I think actually, unfortunately, it erodes confidence that we're not safeguarding cohorts that do need our help and support and who actually don't get the right to remain, even if they are confirmed to be a victim of modern slavery.
And I don't think that does restore public confidence in the system. I think actually, unfortunately, it erodes confidence that we're not safeguarding cohorts that do need our help and support and who actually don't get the right to remain, even if they are confirmed to be a victim of modern slavery.
09:57
09:57
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah. I mean, look, obviously, you know, just sort of building on what others have said. I mean, look, there are obviously bits in the bill that probably do that, you know, that are very positive. The expansion of the the reporting requirements. And again, you sort of learned a bit from the Australian experience and the Canadian experience extending it to public sector organisations. Obviously, that's very positive, the, you know, expansion. But but I do think the ultimate way to sort of to improve confidence is partly, you know, is about sort of improving processes within the system, sort of building on the point earlier, it's about making sure that organisations do have a dedicated point of contact so that there is someone who is directly responsible for modern slavery within sort of first responder organisations, because if you are able and it is about improving and standardizing training so that people know what signs to look for when they're dealing with potential, with potential sort of victims.
Because, I mean, that's the way you read that is the best way to sort of stop the last minute claims, which though small in number, I think, you know, Eleanor said they're less than 2%. They do sort of have a disproportionate psychological effect. And that that's also a much better that that's also going to be much better for victims. So I think it's a lot a lot of a lot more attention needs to be on improving the processes, improving the training, and making sure that someone is actually responsible within first responder organisations.
Because, I mean, that's the way you read that is the best way to sort of stop the last minute claims, which though small in number, I think, you know, Eleanor said they're less than 2%. They do sort of have a disproportionate psychological effect. And that that's also a much better that that's also going to be much better for victims. So I think it's a lot a lot of a lot more attention needs to be on improving the processes, improving the training, and making sure that someone is actually responsible within first responder organisations.
09:58
09:58
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Thank you. Chair. We've already mentioned the European Convention on Human Rights. Other articles are involved, too, and I was just wondering if you might be able to comment, Miss Tennant and Miss Lyons, about the fact that the clause 36 would place additional burden of proof and onus on the victim to self-identify. But we know that there is a requirement for the state. It has a duty under the E, C, H and other obligations like the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings.
What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to, first of all, self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern day slavery? But then the conflict with that, with the other articles that are engaged.
What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to, first of all, self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern day slavery? But then the conflict with that, with the other articles that are engaged.
09:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So most of the survivors that I speak to, and I have a summit which draws together 15 lived experience advisory panels across the UK. Most of them did not realise they were being exploited, and it took them years of help and support to understand what was happening to them and to feel comfortable talking about it. That's, of course, why that premise is there, that it should be the state's responsibility to identify victims of modern slavery and offer them support in their recovery journey.
And that also has a very practical implication of we're trying to stop retrafficking and exploitation taking place and to stop that harm and increasing clause 36 about the credibility assessment is problematic because it says to safeguarding professionals, and it puts into law that it's okay to question victims credibility. If there was time that passed between them coming forward, if there's inconsistencies in what they said, or if they are exploited in the same way as someone else, that's an issue across all victim cohorts who have gone through horrific experiences.
And I think it's completely unacceptable that we're putting that into primary legislation. I think absolutely that part of the bill should just be removed completely.
And that also has a very practical implication of we're trying to stop retrafficking and exploitation taking place and to stop that harm and increasing clause 36 about the credibility assessment is problematic because it says to safeguarding professionals, and it puts into law that it's okay to question victims credibility. If there was time that passed between them coming forward, if there's inconsistencies in what they said, or if they are exploited in the same way as someone else, that's an issue across all victim cohorts who have gone through horrific experiences.
And I think it's completely unacceptable that we're putting that into primary legislation. I think absolutely that part of the bill should just be removed completely.
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Thank you very much, chair, and good morning, everyone. My questions directly to Eleanor, please. I think we can all agree that prevention is better than cure. And just a passing comment just now, you mentioned about the transparency in supply chains being added into this bill. As it stands right now. Do you believe that if no action was taken, that we are in a good enough position for transparency to tackle modern slavery in our supply chains?
10:01
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
So the UK imports over £20 billion worth of goods every year, which are at risk of being made with forced labour. It's tomatoes that you see in your supermarket that say they're from Italy, but from China, fish from North Korea and all of our G7 partners have either introduced mandatory human rights, due diligence or forced labour import bans into their legislation. This requirement in the Bill will ask businesses to report on forced labour in their supply chains, not take action to prevent the harm from happening.
So we're hugely behind international partners in this space and we are at risk of becoming a dumping ground for the world's goods that have been made with forced labour. I think there's an opportunity to hugely enhance these measures, and it's clause 44 to 49 and part five of the bill, and to push it more towards mandatory human rights due diligence and ask businesses to actually take steps to prevent harm happening in their supply chains. And I think, actually, I will say that something that businesses have been calling for, I work with FTSE 100 partners last year and submitted work to the Office of Responsible Business Conduct.
And actually businesses want this because they're being asked to do it in other jurisdictions. So it actually doesn't work as being hugely behind in what we're asking them to do when it comes to their supply chains.
So we're hugely behind international partners in this space and we are at risk of becoming a dumping ground for the world's goods that have been made with forced labour. I think there's an opportunity to hugely enhance these measures, and it's clause 44 to 49 and part five of the bill, and to push it more towards mandatory human rights due diligence and ask businesses to actually take steps to prevent harm happening in their supply chains. And I think, actually, I will say that something that businesses have been calling for, I work with FTSE 100 partners last year and submitted work to the Office of Responsible Business Conduct.
And actually businesses want this because they're being asked to do it in other jurisdictions. So it actually doesn't work as being hugely behind in what we're asking them to do when it comes to their supply chains.
10:02
10:02
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Miss Tennant, I represent Glasgow, which is one of the areas in the country with the highest need for asylum accommodation, and we are a welcoming city. We're proud of being a welcoming city, but you can imagine that welcome is being tested due to the infrastructure stresses that this is placing upon us. You have a long and distinguished career in the United Nations and have seen when asylum, housing and refugee housing works well and where it doesn't work well, and presumably you feel confidence of the host community as a as a in large part a determinant of that.
In your assessment of what's been happening in Britain, particularly over the last decade, where do you think that confidence level lies at the moment? And are you concerned that perhaps we are not in a place we should be , in terms of people perceiving the rules based order to be intact when it comes to asylum?
In your assessment of what's been happening in Britain, particularly over the last decade, where do you think that confidence level lies at the moment? And are you concerned that perhaps we are not in a place we should be , in terms of people perceiving the rules based order to be intact when it comes to asylum?
10:03
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I I'd certainly say that the the issue of asylum accommodation and the the the way in which reception of asylum seekers and support to asylum seekers is managed has has contributed to a crisis of confidence. And as I said, that that that objective of, of restoring public confidence through through a fair and efficient system is one that UNHCR absolutely welcomes. A key element is the fact that asylum seekers have been accommodated for very extended periods of time, waiting for decisions on their on their claims.
And so just simply by virtue of that fact, the volume of support required, the volume of accommodation required, while people aren't able to to work has grown over the years. And we're pleased to see that there's progress in that space. It's a hugely, hugely challenging issue to to address. But what we would say is, alongside the work on asylum support accommodation, how that's provided and how that's done in a way that.
That fosters community welcome and community cohesion. Alongside that work, the work on the the system itself has to continue. And that's certainly where we as UNHCR, kind of bringing our international experience to bear, have really been leaning in and trying to work closely with the Home Office to see how we can make that, have that system that's functioning more, more efficiently, that's getting the decisions out more quickly, but also getting the decisions right first time.
And this is, you know, where we go back to the the discussion around the appeals body, the, the, the most important lever that could be that could be pulled would actually be to, to ensure the quality and to improve the quality of the first instance decision making, to have a second pair of eyes on first instance decisions. So we don't see cases going into the appeals system unnecessarily. At the moment, there's quite a high rate of withdrawals of cases by the Home Office from the appeals system, so that that shouldn't be the case.
There's also quite a high rate of first instance decisions being overturned. So those are cases that ideally wouldn't be in the appeal system in the first place. So that work on quality efficient quality decision making at at first instance is also critical. And that then plays into the issue of asylum support and, and the length of time that asylum seekers are, are hosted in the community.
And so just simply by virtue of that fact, the volume of support required, the volume of accommodation required, while people aren't able to to work has grown over the years. And we're pleased to see that there's progress in that space. It's a hugely, hugely challenging issue to to address. But what we would say is, alongside the work on asylum support accommodation, how that's provided and how that's done in a way that.
That fosters community welcome and community cohesion. Alongside that work, the work on the the system itself has to continue. And that's certainly where we as UNHCR, kind of bringing our international experience to bear, have really been leaning in and trying to work closely with the Home Office to see how we can make that, have that system that's functioning more, more efficiently, that's getting the decisions out more quickly, but also getting the decisions right first time.
And this is, you know, where we go back to the the discussion around the appeals body, the, the, the most important lever that could be that could be pulled would actually be to, to ensure the quality and to improve the quality of the first instance decision making, to have a second pair of eyes on first instance decisions. So we don't see cases going into the appeals system unnecessarily. At the moment, there's quite a high rate of withdrawals of cases by the Home Office from the appeals system, so that that shouldn't be the case.
There's also quite a high rate of first instance decisions being overturned. So those are cases that ideally wouldn't be in the appeal system in the first place. So that work on quality efficient quality decision making at at first instance is also critical. And that then plays into the issue of asylum support and, and the length of time that asylum seekers are, are hosted in the community.
10:06
10:06
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair. Just going back to something you said earlier, Vicky, about the expertise needed on the new for the adjudicators on the new panels in the government's memorandum on human rights, it relies very heavily on these people being able to weigh up proportionality in relation, particularly to article eight. And that's quite a high level legal determination in many, many cases. Is that one of your concerns about the expertise needed on the tribunals?
10:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We would certainly say that it would be really helpful to have more detail on the balance between legal, legally qualified adjudicators and lay adjudicators, what their respective roles of the the the two profiles will be and and simply more widely, how legal expertise and subject matter expertise will be built into the the process. There are other jurisdictions where you have a mix of legal, legally qualified adjudicators and other other adjudicators. Often they.
They sit together in panels and often the other adjudicators will bring subject matter expertise and the specific requirement around knowledge of, for example, conditions in, in, in countries of origin and, and so on. So the, the, the real issue is that we, we would say it's important that that , that legal expertise is strongly reflected in the, in the appeals body and more detail on that, I think would be would be helpful in terms of the consideration of the of the bill.
They sit together in panels and often the other adjudicators will bring subject matter expertise and the specific requirement around knowledge of, for example, conditions in, in, in countries of origin and, and so on. So the, the, the real issue is that we, we would say it's important that that , that legal expertise is strongly reflected in the, in the appeals body and more detail on that, I think would be would be helpful in terms of the consideration of the of the bill.
10:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I take the opportunity to thank Miss Tennant, Miss Lyons and Mr. Prescott for their evidence today. We're very grateful. On behalf of the Committee. Thank you very much. Thank you, thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Miss Run. We will now hear from Helen Runs, director of threat leadership from the National Crime Agency. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion and the committee that the committee has agreed for this session.
We have until 1035. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? Miss Rance, over to you. Hello.
We have until 1035. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? Miss Rance, over to you. Hello.
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:10
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Be in answer to the second part? No, there's nothing specific that's been omitted from from the bill in terms of the biggest thing that will help with organised immigration crime, because obviously the the bill has more direct focus on modern slavery and human trafficking, which I'll call meshed from now onwards. But organised immigration crime is a major focus of ours at the National Crime Agency. But there's nothing specifically within the bill that's going to fundamentally change how we investigate serious and organised criminals that are entering the country.
What it will do is make the country, our borders and our will make us less attractive to criminals entering. So that's the overarching opinion that we have on that.
What it will do is make the country, our borders and our will make us less attractive to criminals entering. So that's the overarching opinion that we have on that.
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. And can I pass on. Thanks as well for everyone at the NCA for the excellent work that they do, because we know how important it is, the disrupting of this organised industrial crime that's taking place across borders. The earlier we can intervene and prevent dangerous crossings is is obviously critical. So I just wanted to put my thanks on the record for everything the agency does. You mentioned there about the importance of deterrent.
And we know that that's a really critical one of the key things that we want to try and achieve in this bill. Could you say a little bit more about how you think the measures in this bill will help deter people and make that intervention earlier down the process of illegal immigration?
And we know that that's a really critical one of the key things that we want to try and achieve in this bill. Could you say a little bit more about how you think the measures in this bill will help deter people and make that intervention earlier down the process of illegal immigration?
10:12
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
So in terms of deterrence, obviously we're a law enforcement agency and we wouldn't make specific definitive judgements on, you know, the different effects that will have on on deterring crossings or immigration. And we very much think that deterrence is about a combination of factors and ultimately a matter for government policy. But these measures, we believe, contribute to a system that is seen as firm and fair and less susceptible to exploitation by organised crime groups.
And it's likely that that will help the overall deterrent effect. In the context of the changes to appeals, protection status, asylum arrangements and the removal process might contribute to making the UK a less attractive target for the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration.
And it's likely that that will help the overall deterrent effect. In the context of the changes to appeals, protection status, asylum arrangements and the removal process might contribute to making the UK a less attractive target for the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration.
10:13
10:13
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
Thank you, chair, I've talked to your colleagues on on the Home Affairs Select Committee about smashing the gangs. I've been trying to smash the drug gangs for half a century. Is there nothing you need that's missing from the bill that would help you smash the gangs? And what's your view on how far the NCA have actually progressed in smashing the gangs?
10:13
10:14
10:14
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I think there is a combination of factors and the law enforcement approach to reducing small boat equipment, to working closely with international partners and using our international intelligence reach has certainly contributed to that. It's not something that we would claim is complete or that we would claim that we have fixed it, but our efforts have contributed to the reduction in crossings.
10:14
10:14
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you. Picking up the previous point, you're right to say that, you know, boat crossings are, I believe, 43% lower this year in order to go further and to implement the proposals that are within this bill, do you feel that the NCA currently has the capacity, the funding, the resources it needs to continue that trend going forward?
10:15
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Yes, we are we have very much moved our operational capacity towards immigration crime. Of course, we, like all agencies, have a finite budget, but we are focusing those on the disruption of the highest harm organised immigration, crime, individuals and networks. I don't think we would ever say that, that we have enough money, because more money could always be spent on increased intelligence , capability and unique capabilities that we utilize.
But certainly we've done a major pivot over the last 18 months towards organised immigration crime. And we've had some some excellent results with that pivot. Yes.
But certainly we've done a major pivot over the last 18 months towards organised immigration crime. And we've had some some excellent results with that pivot. Yes.
10:16
10:16
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you. Chair. In answer to Matt Vickers question, Helen, you said that as a result of this bill, it will be less attractive for organised criminals to exploit our borders. Could you explain to the committee what specifically in this bill you think or your organisation feels contributes to that assessment?
10:16
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Well, the the the strongest deterrence effect is going to come from. Sustained law enforcement activity. And if we are able to continue to disrupt facilitators, seize boats and engines and target criminal finances, then that will have an effect on the organised immigration individuals and networks operating. And this bill really hardens and makes it less attractive for those networks to operate within the United Kingdom.
10:17
10:17
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Smashing the gangs? So to, to, to coin the phrase has it really comes with a lot of different measures and the, the policies and the target hardening and the making, the making it less attractive is just one of those measures. So I don't think there's anything specifically in the bill other than making it a tougher environment for criminals to operate within and less appealing for them to exploit the United Kingdom.
10:18
10:18
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, chair. So in terms of potential refugees seeking to come here to make asylum claims, what analysis has your agency made of the factors that led to there being demand for and a market for organised immigration crime? In terms of the the way that many people are reaching here to make claims. And when did this increase occur?
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:19
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
There's a there's a market for people that the criminals are exploiting and acting in a criminal fashion, but those that market is potential asylum seekers, some of whom have a legitimate claim to be here. Many do. And from what we heard from the previous evidence. So do you know when the increase in demand for the criminals have exploited this kind of journey occurred and why it occurred?
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:20
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Thank you. Chair, the bill claims to have a deterrent effect or that it will have a deterrent effect on people coming to the UK illegally. But no matter how robust the Bill may be, is it really the case? It can have a deterrent effect when it seems to be so easy to set people off in boats from the north of France?
10:20
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The the deterrent effect that it would have is to toughen up the environment. The specifics of this bill on launching boats from France. The two are not specifically linked. This is the deterrent effect of making the UK less attractive in general, but actually to launching boats, then that's not something that I could comment on from this bill alone.
10:21
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
And do you see it having any effect on where migrants may come to the UK geographically, where they may be received in intercepted by law enforcement? I ask the question because we see boat crossings now stretching as far down as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Is there anything in this bill from your position that addresses the expanded geography of where organizations such as yours have to operate?
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Thank you. Chair, I just want to follow up from my colleague Sian Berry and her line of questioning. I think the point that I would like to sort of get from the NCA here really, is that presumably when the previous government's removed those safe routes from overseas, did the NCA see an impact on illegal activity of people then exploiting these vulnerable people? Would you be able to comment on that? And do you feel confident that this bill will will reverse that?
10:22
10:22
10:22
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Our work is on the organised immigration crime networks. Those serious and organised crime groups and there has been. I can't I can't be led with saying that they have been. They have increased due to specific measures, because it's a whole raft of factors that make that happen. So I'm just not in a position to be able to answer that.
10:23
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Thank you. Chair. One of the issues that's in the face of the bill is to increase dramatically reporting by companies and other individuals. A question for yourself when obviously, is the National Crime Agency, you're working with a plethora of different organisations across the United Kingdom. Do you believe that that increase in reporting will actually help you in terms of finding those illegal routes that are being used within the United Kingdom?
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Chair I'll be brief. So with the. We've discussed the gangs a lot and you obviously NSA is investigating. Is it true to say that the. A lot of the criminal activity around the the the the gangs and the migration coming into the country is actually the NCA are investigating in the United Kingdom itself. It's not just gangs over in Europe and and elsewhere. And is it also true to say that there's been some links potentially to that.
It's been funded through cryptocurrency as well.
It's been funded through cryptocurrency as well.
10:25
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The first part of the question then, yes, we would investigate gangs within the United Kingdom as well as outside that are facilitating illegal immigration. The second part, the cryptocurrency, is one of the methods that that that one of many methods that can fund, which is why we are doing a specific amount of work on the criminal finances that are used. So I'm not going to comment specifically on how much cryptocurrency, but but you know, there are many methods of which cryptocurrency is one.
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To our. Thank you chair, John Barry. Thank you chair. Just to clarify, in terms of this bill, the criminal investigation of the gangs is not in scope. You have been asked to come today to testify to the potential of the bill to reduce demand. So I think it is completely legitimate that we ask you about the your your your.
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Professor Eakins, if you could just briefly introduce yourself. Certainly. So you've done so already, and I thank you for it. I'm a professor at the University of Oxford, and I lead Policy Exchange's work on judicial power and which connection? I've written a great deal on migration and asylum law. including the problems, as I see it, of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in this context, and also the.
The way in which successive governments and. With respect. Some parliamentarians have. misunderstood the Refugee Convention and the .
The way in which successive governments and. With respect. Some parliamentarians have. misunderstood the Refugee Convention and the .
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Many thanks. And , Doctor Casey, thank you very much for the invitation to speak today. My name is Connor Casey. I'm a senior lecturer at the University of Surrey School of Law and a senior fellow at Policy Exchange. My area of expertise. includes public law, administrative law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, and how . The
10:29
10:29
10:29
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Many thanks. Thank you. Is there any risk that the article eight provisions in the bill could move litigation onto different questions. rather than increasing the government's ability to remove those with no right to be here? And if Parliament wanted to go further in restricting the. circumstances in which article eight can prevent.
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you. Shall I tackle that first? Perhaps. So I think I think there will certainly be litigation that arises in consequence of these new provisions. If they are enacted, they will not end the controversy in this space. The I think the the litigation may turn on on different questions, such as whether something counts as as normally or not. But a lot turns. There's a great deal of uncertainty, I think, about actually how these.
This relevant provision. I think clause 18 of the bill and the changes it makes will be received by the courts. So in a sense, the. legislation leaves untouched the sort of the fundamental structure of article eight in this in this context, which is.
This relevant provision. I think clause 18 of the bill and the changes it makes will be received by the courts. So in a sense, the. legislation leaves untouched the sort of the fundamental structure of article eight in this in this context, which is.
10:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It's, I think, tries to clarify or maybe streamline some some aspects of the way in which article eight is understood and applied. And, and I think that those changes, so far as they go, are to be welcomed. But I think it it's quite unclear whether and to what extent, if at all, that will restrain the courts in applying article eight, because the legislation, as I say, takes for granted continuing. individuated assessment. The legislation does not purport to be an exclusive code for article eight.
It does not displace article eight under the Human Rights Act. It does not direct the courts to focus only on the terms of this legislation and close their eyes to the Strasbourg.
It does not displace article eight under the Human Rights Act. It does not direct the courts to focus only on the terms of this legislation and close their eyes to the Strasbourg.
10:31
10:31
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The Strasbourg case law, rather. So the way in which article eight will be understood and applied, I think, will be informed to some extent by this new legislation. But there will be arguing about precisely what it means when the various. conditionals in the legislation apply. And it will always be open, I think, to unlawful migrants, asylum seekers who are making arguments by reference to article eight, to invite the court really to go to go back to the Strasbourg courts case law and to take this legislation as well, in a sense, advisory.
I know that may sound somewhat strange, but I think that's effectively the structure we have that Parliament is not clearly telling the courts focus only on this legislation. Close your eyes to that other body of case law. Now, it could attempt to do so. It could go further, I think, by actually. disapplying article eight under the Human Rights Act, and making this an exclusive code for the relevance of family life. That would, I think, require some recasting.
I mean, to my mind, there's a more fundamental problem here, which is that we're maintaining. individuated proportionality assessment as the test for the lawfulness of removal, and that that will inevitably be somewhat ad hoc as perhaps the wrong term, but particular unpredictable. A great deal will turn on the persons who are making the adjudicative decisions. Obviously, the bill has something to say about that, but it's quite unpredictable how that will play out. So it's a complicated answer to your question.
I think there will certainly be litigation, and I think it's it'd be a mistake to think that this this new legislation will. authoritatively determine how article eight will be understood. I think it will make some difference.
I know that may sound somewhat strange, but I think that's effectively the structure we have that Parliament is not clearly telling the courts focus only on this legislation. Close your eyes to that other body of case law. Now, it could attempt to do so. It could go further, I think, by actually. disapplying article eight under the Human Rights Act, and making this an exclusive code for the relevance of family life. That would, I think, require some recasting.
I mean, to my mind, there's a more fundamental problem here, which is that we're maintaining. individuated proportionality assessment as the test for the lawfulness of removal, and that that will inevitably be somewhat ad hoc as perhaps the wrong term, but particular unpredictable. A great deal will turn on the persons who are making the adjudicative decisions. Obviously, the bill has something to say about that, but it's quite unpredictable how that will play out. So it's a complicated answer to your question.
I think there will certainly be litigation, and I think it's it'd be a mistake to think that this this new legislation will. authoritatively determine how article eight will be understood. I think it will make some difference.
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:33
10:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
clear intent behind the bill very seriously, which is to tighten and narrow the. circumstances in which article eight can be invoked and successfully relied upon to resist a removal or deportation. However, as my colleague Richard pointed out, a lot of the wording in the bill gives leeway for more flexible or generous. interpretations for applicants. Article eight, the bill says, for example, is normally only a nuclear family, partners residing together, parent and child residing together.
But that normally suggests judges might take a broader understanding for other types of family arrangements. There are standards throughout the bill like.
But that normally suggests judges might take a broader understanding for other types of family arrangements. There are standards throughout the bill like.
10:33
10:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Adverse impact, unduly harsh. And here again, there's scope to give these a much more generous. interpretation such that, you know, for for some judges, it might be hard not to find an instance where deportation couldn't be considered harsh or have any adverse impact on a child because it does separate a family unit. So I can imagine some judges, not all, but some reading these standards in a in a generous way, which would capture a large sweep of cases and defeat removals and deportations.
So there is a scenario where the reception of this bill is such that judges retain quite a lot of discretion to come up with their own understanding of the right. balance between the public interest and individual's family life, and. plausibly within the text of the bill, reach conclusions that are in tension with the clear policy intent behind the bill. So I think that is an.
So there is a scenario where the reception of this bill is such that judges retain quite a lot of discretion to come up with their own understanding of the right. balance between the public interest and individual's family life, and. plausibly within the text of the bill, reach conclusions that are in tension with the clear policy intent behind the bill. So I think that is an.
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Parliament at best can give indications of where it wants waiting to go. But if you stay within the strictures of the courts must have the final say. I also just mention, in response to the question about whether, if article eight claims are less attractive, there might be other claims made within the Echr. Absolutely. I imagine article three claims will probably increase, and the difference between article three and article eight is is the committee will know.
Is it article three is categorical. There's no. qualification if the threshold is met and the.
Is it article three is categorical. There's no. qualification if the threshold is met and the.
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
failure here. Minister. Thank you. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your your responses there. Could I step back more broadly than just the article eight measures and talk about the bill in the round, and ask your view on whether the bill strikes the right balance between honoring our. obligations to refugees under the conventions or and balancing that with taking stronger action to deal with the challenges we face.
internationally on illegal.
internationally on illegal.
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
particular features that warrant a particular response. And I think to my mind, the legislation, unfortunately, although it tinkers with aspects of how the Refugee Convention should be understood in our law, maybe we'll come to that later. It seems silently, at least, to take for. granted that persons who have contracted with people smugglers and made it across the . channel are entitled to asylum and to remain in the UK. I think that's a.
misunderstanding of the terms of the Refugee Convention, which do entitle us to expel persons, even if they are genuine refugees, under the meaning of the Refugee. Convention from the UK. And this is a protection that all member states enjoy, I should add, entitles us to expel them to other states because they have entered in violation of our migration law. Be different. If they'd entered directly from a state where their lives were in danger, but no one coming from France is in that position, which makes it.
structurally different position to to other contexts where people . Are
misunderstanding of the terms of the Refugee Convention, which do entitle us to expel persons, even if they are genuine refugees, under the meaning of the Refugee. Convention from the UK. And this is a protection that all member states enjoy, I should add, entitles us to expel them to other states because they have entered in violation of our migration law. Be different. If they'd entered directly from a state where their lives were in danger, but no one coming from France is in that position, which makes it.
structurally different position to to other contexts where people . Are
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
10:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
problem. There will be genuine refugees crossing the channel. But so long as contracting with people smugglers is a viable route to enter and thus to settle in the UK, that that is going to persist. It's it's a it's a logical and rational expenditure of, of funds. And it's, it's a flourishing business. As long as you don't care about the lives of people crossing a dangerous water. And so I think there's a failure to, to recognize the protections we have as a country under the refugee.
Convention and to take action that would not . Place
Convention and to take action that would not . Place
10:39
10:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
danger. They could be removed to to safe third, third states. The bill, as far as I can see, is is focused on . Increasing. Administrative Adjudicative capacity to process appeal claims more speedily. Nothing wrong with that, of course. In fact, it's admirable. But that, I think, leaves untouched the central structural problem which . I and
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
On visas. deterring breaching conditions of your. permission to reside. And that can be very valuable. Those are. significant numbers, but I don't see anything here that would deter in any way unlawful. crossings in in the channel. I would say just to if we were to if we if you were to go further. In the bill and, for example, take advantage of provisions in the Refugee.
10:40
10:40
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Which allows states to. return those convicted of serious criminal offences or threats to national security to return them to their their home country, even if there might be a risk of ill treatment. The Refugee Convention allows that that wouldn't be possible within the confines of the Echr. Article three puts a.
10:40
10:40
10:41
10:41
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Poses even more stringent restrictions in many respects. May I just add to that that I, I agree with everything Doctor Casey has said, but I would add that that's article three, as in my view, misinterpreted by the Strasbourg court. Article three does provide a categorical prohibition on on torture and subjecting people to inhuman treatment that has been, as I say. misinterpreted in in recent. decades to establish a much more far reaching bar on taking action that exposes someone to a risk by third parties of such action.
We published a paper in. 2021 that addressed in close . Detail
We published a paper in. 2021 that addressed in close . Detail
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
I think numbers are hard to come by. But in the first tier tribunal, asylum, immigration, I think there's 90 salaried judges and then an. undetermined amount of part time judges. But I don't I think the full number might not be more than 200, 250. So, so not a lot to process tens of. thousands of appeals. So if you were, if you were to. expand the pool of decision makers by.
requiring less onerous legal.
requiring less onerous legal.
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And there's a lot to be said for that. But the the risk, as I see it, is that on the current design, you just risk moving the. backlog because if you have a large pool of people without legal training, applying a very complicated body of law, very I mean. extraordinarily complicated law, UK domestic law, immigration rules, statutes, they're more likely to make mistakes, they're more likely to make errors of law and those errors of law.
Then you have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, which will remain judges, and they may grant more leave to appeal. So you might just. relocate the backlog from the first. instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal. That's the that's the risk, but that it need not be the case. I think I, I I'm loathe to say things off the hoof on, on complicated points of designing institutions, but it might not be a choice between no legal.
qualifications and fit for judicial office. 12 years plus you could you could simply require some level of legal.
Then you have a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, which will remain judges, and they may grant more leave to appeal. So you might just. relocate the backlog from the first. instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal. That's the that's the risk, but that it need not be the case. I think I, I I'm loathe to say things off the hoof on, on complicated points of designing institutions, but it might not be a choice between no legal.
qualifications and fit for judicial office. 12 years plus you could you could simply require some level of legal.
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
initial thoughts on that part of the bill. So my part, I think I would say it's too strong with respect to say this is a move from a judicial process to an administrative process. It's certainly a change. And a change does move us. If if an actor then put in practice closer to a model of departmental. adjudication .. But still not departmental.
10:45
10:45
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
relevant adjudicators will be at some distance from the Home Secretary and will will be. adjudicating claims, appeals and so on. Now, I think there could be some advantages in in the proposed change, namely trying to integrate the process of reviewing particular cases more closely to the immigration appeal immigration asylum system, and making the public interest in enforcement of migration law . A
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Fairness or otherwise, of removing this person who is in violation of migration law. That makes things unpredictable. It creates. It makes the the disposition of the relevant adjudicators awfully . important, and I think results in more litigation and more appeals. Now changing the persons who are doing that, that kind of individual individual. assessment might well result in a different set of outcomes. If you if you have and I don't know who will be recruited for this, but it's conceivable, for example, that former police officers would constitute persons fit for appointment.
They may well, and I don't know but take a different view on the fairness or otherwise of removing some persons whose claims come before them to the view taken by the. existing cadre of first tier tribunal judges. But it's the same body of law that would be being applied. And it's complex. It's certainly true. And I think one can expect a lot of appeals. And in addition to that, I think this is a crucial point for the committee to bear in mind.
I think there could be considerable.
They may well, and I don't know but take a different view on the fairness or otherwise of removing some persons whose claims come before them to the view taken by the. existing cadre of first tier tribunal judges. But it's the same body of law that would be being applied. And it's complex. It's certainly true. And I think one can expect a lot of appeals. And in addition to that, I think this is a crucial point for the committee to bear in mind.
I think there could be considerable.
10:46
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Promulgating secondary legislation, making critical decisions about the structure and operation of the the Adjudicative body, many of those decisions will be challenged by judicial review. When the judicial body is underway. Particular decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review, as well as by appeal to the upper tribunal. Now, clause one, paragraph eight, I think, looks like a kind of attempt to limit the the judicial involvement in . Decisions
10:47
10:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Adjudicative body to appeals to the upper tribunal only if that's the intention. With respect, I think it's going to fail. It is not an effective ouster clause, and we. You can certainly expect and I do much litigation and ordinary judicial review proceedings, challenging particular decisions of the Adjudicative body. So although more administrative capacity and more adjudicative capacity, I should say, is certainly welcome, you need that if you're going to deal with the existing growing backlog, I think you've got to reckon .
With that
With that
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Role of of department in deciding cases and the role of courts in reviewing, reviewing claims about the the nature of decision making. So certainly if you if you go back not that long ago in our history, I think you would have had the home home Office making decisions here about application of the relevant migration law. And those decisions would be subject to judicial.
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
10:49
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
it doesn't have to be that way. Jonathan Brasch, thank you, chair, given the. explosion in. numbers of people claiming asylum since 2021, I think it's fair to say it's a widely held public view that a huge number of those are not genuine. This bill aims to make it less. attractive to people who don't. qualify for.
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Well, maybe I'll tackle that first. So I'm not sure whether the bill really does make it less attractive for people who fail to qualify. I mean, I suppose it it into my as I've said already, it rightly makes it more difficult for some unlawful migrants who claimed asylum. But the claim has failed or to to stay in . The
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
grounds. The bill so the bill, if if enacted and if well received, will make it marginally. I don't mean that dismissively, but marginally easier to remove some of those people. Major obstacles will remain, though. I think the bill , in a sense, the perhaps provisions you have in mind, perhaps, are those that concern recovery of contributions for asylum support, but I and I apologize if I've misread this, but I thought .
That in
That in
10:51
10:51
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
This would hold regardless of whether one was a genuine refugee or not. It's. The point is that there'll be power in the Home Secretary to recover funds from people who've received asylum support. There are limitations there. Clearly. They have to have funds to to make make a contribution, and they can't be left destitute in consequence. That may have a modest deterrent effect, but that, I think, will hold for failed asylum seekers, including fraudulent asylum seekers.
And not not every failed asylum seeker is fraudulent, of course, and for genuine refugees too. But then I think it is the policy of of the government, and I think rightly so, to deter genuine refugees from attempting to enter the country, certainly by contracting with people smugglers and entering unlawfully across the channel. So I think that that has that goes to your question.
And not not every failed asylum seeker is fraudulent, of course, and for genuine refugees too. But then I think it is the policy of of the government, and I think rightly so, to deter genuine refugees from attempting to enter the country, certainly by contracting with people smugglers and entering unlawfully across the channel. So I think that that has that goes to your question.
10:52
10:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'm not sure it's going to make much difference in practice. Personally, I don't think it's objectionable in principle. But if people have funds to make a contribution to the public funds they've received, that they should make it. But I doubt that many people will be in a position to to deliver. There is the other aspect, though. The other part of it which we've touched on, which is the changes in clause 22 that are made in relation to the understanding of of article .
3032 of the of the convention. 33 forgive me, but those those provisions, in a sense, concern people who are genuine. refugees . just means that those genuine refugees can nonetheless be expelled, even to a country where their persecutors are waiting if they are a danger to the community and a threat to national security.
3032 of the of the convention. 33 forgive me, but those those provisions, in a sense, concern people who are genuine. refugees . just means that those genuine refugees can nonetheless be expelled, even to a country where their persecutors are waiting if they are a danger to the community and a threat to national security.
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
why it's framed the way it is, and it it seems in a sense, back to front, but that at least the government and and Parliament, if it supports the Bill, we are addressing that provision, which is an important protection. I think it's an important protection we won't really be able to rely on, because any attempt to remove a threat to national security person who is a threat or a danger to the community will be . Predictably
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:54
10:54
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
That family life. formed when your immigration status is. precarious or when you're unlawfully present, should have little or no weight, respectively. Now, if the courts took that very. seriously and that was sort of well known, if this was something that became sort of common knowledge that might make you think, okay, you know, this, this, this will, it'll be harder to, to, to. leverage article eight to stay that that could have a deterrent effect, but .
Not
Not
10:54
10:54
10:54
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Unlawful crossings, I don't think. Stevenson. Thank you. Can we just briefly return to clause one eight, which I think Professor Eakins, you described as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Would you would you be able to describe why you think it's a poor attempt at an ouster provision? And also if it was better.
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
please? We'll start with you, Professor Eakins, please. Thank you. Yes. I think we have a long tradition in our country of and our the common law world more broadly of. interpreting ouster clauses, clauses that in legislation that would limit the jurisdiction of the court on judicial review of interpreting those clauses narrowly. So the courts take for granted that Parliament is probably not going to be excluding their their supervisory capacity.
And so if a provision is going to genuinely exclude that.
And so if a provision is going to genuinely exclude that.
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:56
10:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
those clauses, I just do not think that clause will be understood to mean there can be no judicial review of a decision of the adjudicative body that, for example, is procedurally unfair or that is so unreasonable no adjudicative body would have reached it. Now what it might do, and I think this is how it would be read, would be no, no judicial review challenges to to that adjudicative decision on grounds of . Error of
10:56
10:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Because if you think there's an error of law, you appeal the upper tribunal, fine. So it would have some limited effect there. But it wouldn't it wouldn't have the if the point was, and I don't know, the whether this was the policy of the government or quite what the drafters had in mind, if the point was to categorically exclude judicial review of Adjudicative decisions of this body, then it certainly won't achieve that. Or I say certainly I think that's probably the case, but I think it's very unlikely.
10:56
10:56
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
If you if you drafted a. different ouster clause, then one might have more hope that it would be effective. And so in a sense, what you could do is, is. specify and categorically exclude the particular grounds of judicial review that you do as Parliament do not want this decision of the body to be subject to. And then in a sense, you're taking full. responsibility for what judicial review should .
Look
Look
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
say, some more. Thoroughgoing and careful, if you like, precise ouster clauses along those lines, but sometimes called partial ouster clauses because they don't categorically exclude judicial review, but they vary severely limited. And there's one such ouster clause in the Judicial Review and Courts Act.
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Decisions of the upper tribunal from judicial review. That model could be applied here. Now, there are some, I should add. There are some drawbacks to so doing, because this new adjudicative body, as our previous discussion may suggest, is. And the structure of the bill shows, I think is is not quite. It won't be a court. This body. It will be an adjudicator body with some independence. But it won't be like the upper tribunal, which frankly is just .
Like the High
Like the High
10:58
10:58
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
different mode. So the. constitutional case it's doing it is certainly stronger than was the case with the upper tribunal. But if Parliament takes the view that there should be no judicial review here, or it should be only on these these specified grounds, then there are other models available for drafting an ouster cause. And I would not, if I were . In your
10:58
10:58
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Sorry, I don't know if you want to add anything, Doctor Casey. Yes I agree, I'll just say I think that because the Independent. Immigration Appeal Authority will not be a judicial body, the courts might be more. anxious in. scrutinizing whether a clause oust judicial review. Yeah. At the moment the way it's drafted is a public lawyer. You read a clause trying to oust and you kind of think how a court would read it.
And I can imagine a court looking at that at the minute and inserting a bracket after a and before decision, and putting rational and reasonable decision . Of the
And I can imagine a court looking at that at the minute and inserting a bracket after a and before decision, and putting rational and reasonable decision . Of the
10:59
10:59
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Very well described. Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Thank you. Yes. Really keen to come back, if I may, just to some of the comments you made on article eight, what's your analysis of how this has slowly, over time protected those that it was never originally intended to cover? And how can we safeguard this in the future? And then picking up on the point you made Doctor Casey about potential knock on effect to to article three, how can we what mechanisms can we use to prevent sort of article three being abused .
Essentially on
Essentially on
10:59
10:59
10:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
changes to article eight? Thanks. Perhaps I'll go first, if I may, just on the article eight point, I mean, my own view, which I think is is. substantiated in quite some detail in the. 2021 Policy Exchange paper I referred to with the support of Lord Hoffmann. Is that really article eight? For a long time in the history of the EC had nothing to do with immigration and asylum.
It was not a not a provision that was understood to impose limits on on the enforcement of migration law or on the deportation or removal of.
It was not a not a provision that was understood to impose limits on on the enforcement of migration law or on the deportation or removal of.
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
by reading article eight very. extensively and then effectively. requiring each. particular decision to enforce the migration law of a member state to to involve an individuated proportionality assessment about whether the impact on the on the particular person being removed or in relation to article eight, quite often in relation to his or her family, maybe his or her extended family, for that to pass judicial muster. As I say, I think that's an.
innovation in the case law of the Strasbourg court. I mean, it's an innovation that's been going on for several decades. I don't want to overstate its novelty now, but it's it's not part of what the UK and other member states agreed when they agreed the terms of the convention. And I think it should be viewed as as a. misinterpretation of the convention. I think in a sense, there's something in the the joint declaration of the Member States earlier this year that recognises that something has gone wrong in the case .
Law of the court, that it has read article eight and and we'll come to article three in a bit to to to establish a kind of a Europe wide migration and asylum law beyond the terms . Agreed by
innovation in the case law of the Strasbourg court. I mean, it's an innovation that's been going on for several decades. I don't want to overstate its novelty now, but it's it's not part of what the UK and other member states agreed when they agreed the terms of the convention. And I think it should be viewed as as a. misinterpretation of the convention. I think in a sense, there's something in the the joint declaration of the Member States earlier this year that recognises that something has gone wrong in the case .
Law of the court, that it has read article eight and and we'll come to article three in a bit to to to establish a kind of a Europe wide migration and asylum law beyond the terms . Agreed by
11:01
11:01
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
the member States that I think needs to be addressed and wound back. And the thought that, in a sense, you're wronging a foreign criminal when you remove him or her from from the UK so that he can't maintain or she a connection with with family, I think is , is just fundamentally misconceived. And the same way we're not wronging the offender by incarcerating him, which makes it very much more difficult to maintain a sort of flourishing family life.
11:02
11:02
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
a side effect of the the wrongful choice made by the offender. It's something similar holds, I think, with the wrongful choice made by a person who violates our migration law. There are harsh. consequences in many of these cases, of course, but they're not harsh consequences whereby the UK sets out to to wrong someone's family. And I think that that structure has to be more fully recognised. And we should see that really something has gone badly wrong in thinking that the right to respect for private and family life entails a, at least in some .
Cases,
Cases,
11:02
11:02
11:02
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Yeah. Oh, sorry, doctor Casey over to you. Thank you. Oh, I just wanted to say I agree with Professor Higgins entirely there. I think the extension of article eight into the domain of immigration law was a very conspicuous act of judicial lawmaking through the living instrument approach. As recently as.
11:03
11:03
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
In the Abdul Aziz versus United Kingdom case, you had the UK government, Sir Peter Rawlinson, the attorney general, arguing to nail that article eight did not apply to questions about entry into the UK or removal. It was just outside the scope. They lost that case and it has been these shores. position for several decades since then. But it was not understood as part of the original . Compact.
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:05
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Mr. Fenby, could I ask you to just briefly introduce yourself? Thank you very much. And on behalf of the Refugee Council, really welcome this opportunity. I'm John, you're the chief policy analyst at the Refugee Council. As an organisation, we support around. 15,000 refugees and people seeking asylum each year from when they first entered the UK, right through to when they get . Refugee.
11:05
11:05
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
journey after that as well. Thank you, Shadow Minister. Thank you. Do you believe that someone who deliberately enters the UK illegally from a safe country should face a different immigration consequence from someone who enters using a legal route? And if not, what alternative. deterrents would the Refugee Council . To
11:05
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
support discourage people from making those dangerous crossings? I'm going to focus on those people who enter the UK for the purpose of seeking. asylum within that. international protection regime. And for us, this comes down to really how the Refugee. Convention has been. interpreted and how it's been. operationalized since it first came in in.
11:06
11:06
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And this has been based around countries like the UK requiring somebody to be present in the UK on their in their own territory before they can actually. access the protection systems. That's, by its nature, means that people have to undertake some of those dangerous journeys to get there. And I think it's important to recognise that the convention talks about somebody being a refugee once they've been forced to leave that country because of war and persecution.
It is then blind to where that that person is. I think there are obviously. benefits to those people who don't need to undertake dangerous journeys to get somewhere, and that obviously benefits those individuals who don't need to put their lives at risk. And we've seen across the world the really deadly consequence of that has it also has benefits for the host countries themselves. If people are able to arrive in an orderly in an orderly manner as well, and not having to resort to the types of journeys that we have to, it's also part of this important international.
context that most refugees, most people displaced their countries stay in those countries bordering the ones that they fled from. Some people do move on. Sometimes that can be after they've that situation in those countries. neighbouring the place that they fled and no longer they're no longer safe for them, are no longer allowing those people to try and fill those lives, particularly as we see refugee situations becoming increasingly. protracted across the globe. And that's really one of the things that we see is lacking from the UK's.
response at the moment. And it's not just the UK's response is that we have seen that deterrence measures that you mentioned being adopted by successive governments. I think we've seen some impact of that, particularly this year in terms of that drop in small boat arrivals. What we would argue for in terms of the Refugee Council's point of view, is that the bit that is largely been missed from this is the bit about how you continue to undermine that business model of people smugglers and the people who will take advantage of those people seeking safety.
And that is where we will talk about the. importance of safe, safe and legal routes, which actually the previous. government opened up new ones, the Afghan scheme, the Ukraine schemes, actually, we think, great, great success. One of the challenges that we see at the moment is over the last year, those safe routes available to people have dropped. The numbers of people arriving on safe routes in the last 12 months is down by about 50%. Refugee family reunion has been temporarily suspended for over a year now.
We've seen the. closure of the Afghan schemes. We've been promised new, safe and legal routes that's going to open in the next few months with arrivals next year, but it seems those numbers are going to be quite small. But if we look at what worked, probably in somewhere like the US under President Biden, it was having those two sides of the approach. Yes, that enforcement approach. But on the other side of that, having quite generous, open, safe and legal routes.
So those people who generally need safety are . Able to do
It is then blind to where that that person is. I think there are obviously. benefits to those people who don't need to undertake dangerous journeys to get somewhere, and that obviously benefits those individuals who don't need to put their lives at risk. And we've seen across the world the really deadly consequence of that has it also has benefits for the host countries themselves. If people are able to arrive in an orderly in an orderly manner as well, and not having to resort to the types of journeys that we have to, it's also part of this important international.
context that most refugees, most people displaced their countries stay in those countries bordering the ones that they fled from. Some people do move on. Sometimes that can be after they've that situation in those countries. neighbouring the place that they fled and no longer they're no longer safe for them, are no longer allowing those people to try and fill those lives, particularly as we see refugee situations becoming increasingly. protracted across the globe. And that's really one of the things that we see is lacking from the UK's.
response at the moment. And it's not just the UK's response is that we have seen that deterrence measures that you mentioned being adopted by successive governments. I think we've seen some impact of that, particularly this year in terms of that drop in small boat arrivals. What we would argue for in terms of the Refugee Council's point of view, is that the bit that is largely been missed from this is the bit about how you continue to undermine that business model of people smugglers and the people who will take advantage of those people seeking safety.
And that is where we will talk about the. importance of safe, safe and legal routes, which actually the previous. government opened up new ones, the Afghan scheme, the Ukraine schemes, actually, we think, great, great success. One of the challenges that we see at the moment is over the last year, those safe routes available to people have dropped. The numbers of people arriving on safe routes in the last 12 months is down by about 50%. Refugee family reunion has been temporarily suspended for over a year now.
We've seen the. closure of the Afghan schemes. We've been promised new, safe and legal routes that's going to open in the next few months with arrivals next year, but it seems those numbers are going to be quite small. But if we look at what worked, probably in somewhere like the US under President Biden, it was having those two sides of the approach. Yes, that enforcement approach. But on the other side of that, having quite generous, open, safe and legal routes.
So those people who generally need safety are . Able to do
11:08
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
not used as a deterrence, is there anything that the Refugee Council might accept? I think for those people who are refugees or having an asylum system, the first and foremost does what it should do, which is making decisions as quickly as it can. And they're right the first time, which I think under successive governments now has been a bit bit of a challenge making sure that that happens. But for those people who are actually genuinely seeking protection and who need it, that is the system that needs to make sure that those people are able to access that protection when they when they will do.
I think what we've also seen is that challenge at the other end of it, and this, I think, comes down to where you have a firm and fair system, is for those people who are found not to have those that protection need, that there is a system in place that makes sure that those people can are actually removed from the UK as quickly and hopefully as humanely as possible. And that is probably where there have been challenges, some of them legal.
But actually some of this comes down to actually . Basic
I think what we've also seen is that challenge at the other end of it, and this, I think, comes down to where you have a firm and fair system, is for those people who are found not to have those that protection need, that there is a system in place that makes sure that those people can are actually removed from the UK as quickly and hopefully as humanely as possible. And that is probably where there have been challenges, some of them legal.
But actually some of this comes down to actually . Basic
11:09
11:09
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
well. Minister. Thank you, thank you. I think we share your commitment to safe and legal routes as being a really important way to fulfil our obligations. But obviously, as you see at the moment, we do have large numbers of people who are coming here through irregular means. What proportion of those are arriving by irregular means? Do you guys are the Refugee Council think are genuinely . Fleeing war
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:10
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Iran, some of those places in the world that I think is quite well known, that there are reasons why people would seek safety from them. Within that time, there have been spikes from other countries. I think quite famously, there's a lot of attention in. 2022 on Albanians. Those numbers dropped down quite quickly, and that's probably a slightly different route than some of those other countries. But when you look at those numbers across it, and we've done some analysis in the past that Refugee Council looking at what you'd expect the asylum outcomes to be for those.
11:11
11:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Sort of historically, you'd expect around. two thirds of those people crossing in small boats that go on and get protection. That's dropped slightly in the last year because the overall grant rate has dropped. Although the caveat to that is that because the Home Office hasn't published appeal outcome statistics for the last three years, it's quite hard to work . Out
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:11
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
immigration system whilst safeguarding the family rights? There's only so much that I can say to this as the Refugee Council and our particular focus on those. people that we support. I think the previous panel mentioned how article eight is one of those rights which has to be balanced between having a immigration system which is controlled, but also those individual cases. And certainly from the Refugee Council point of view, we would continue to.
support the individual application and. interpretation of of article eight. And we see that in our work with refugee families. It's very much not the case that a family who's been forced to displace there's not one size fits all. These families can look like all sorts of different things. And one of the things that where we maybe focus a bit more on article eight and particularly around actually what, how the UK defines a core family to be, will be around the future system for refugee families to be able to, to safely reunite.
We have shared our concerns around the suspension of that route. By our estimate, there are probably about. 2000 people have not been able to apply to be reunited safely through that route since the suspended just over a year ago. And I think for us, the important thing to remember about that route is that for many years, nine and ten of those visas granted to people on that route have been women and children. So in terms of actually trying to make sure that some of the probably the most.
vulnerable people have been displaced from their homes and who are in danger of being able to access that . Safe
support the individual application and. interpretation of of article eight. And we see that in our work with refugee families. It's very much not the case that a family who's been forced to displace there's not one size fits all. These families can look like all sorts of different things. And one of the things that where we maybe focus a bit more on article eight and particularly around actually what, how the UK defines a core family to be, will be around the future system for refugee families to be able to, to safely reunite.
We have shared our concerns around the suspension of that route. By our estimate, there are probably about. 2000 people have not been able to apply to be reunited safely through that route since the suspended just over a year ago. And I think for us, the important thing to remember about that route is that for many years, nine and ten of those visas granted to people on that route have been women and children. So in terms of actually trying to make sure that some of the probably the most.
vulnerable people have been displaced from their homes and who are in danger of being able to access that . Safe
11:13
11:13
11:13
Speaker 15
-
Speaker 15
reunion in the future. Thank you, Doctor Zubair. Ahmet. Thank you chair Mr. Putin thank you for the work you do, looking after the vulnerable and also your counterparts in the Scottish Refugee Council. We're very grateful. That work, of course, can only go on if there's public confidence in the system. And as you know, applications have risen steadily since 2021. From your.
11:13
11:13
11:13
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Can be hopefully returned? I think there's definitely some some positive signs that the government should be quite proud of. And we publish a report around the time of the. election looking at the state of the asylum system at that point, and we described it as a system that was in meltdown, largely caused by the Illegal Migration Act, which was seen productivity within the Home Office dropped to its lowest level since the height of the Covid pandemic.
Since then, the Home Office has been done a much better job of being able to make decisions quickly. For the last statistics that we have, about. 75% of initial. decisions are made within six months of somebody making making the application. That is a good thing. And I think that is definitely where we see where there should be some government priority given to actually how you make sure that people have confidence in asylum system, and that is a system that is doing its basics right, which is making decisions as quickly as they can that are right the first time, and then are able either then supporting refugees who are found to be in need of protection, to get on with their lives and rebuild their lives and contribute fully to UK communities.
And for those who aren't found, the need for. protection there being some challenge, then then being a way for those people to be removed safely and humanely. And that's where we see some of the. challenges within the bill that we don't think actually address some of that context. I think previous panels had touched on the backlog now being the asylum system being at that appeal stage, which is almost an inevitable consequence of dealing with that initial decision backlog.
There are going to be more decisions, therefore more refusals. Therefore, there will be more people that go into that appeals process. There's probably around three times as many people in that appeals backlog now as the actual asylum. The asylum backlog itself. Some of that, I think, will just work its way through the system because as the government gets more onto on top of the asylum system itself, what sort of officials refer to as sort of having friction within asylum system, where they're making roughly the same number of decisions as those people entering it? But also, I think what we've seen as a result of the speeding up of decision making in recent years is a.
reduction in the quality of some of the decisions that we think is then put an unnecessary. pressure on that.
Since then, the Home Office has been done a much better job of being able to make decisions quickly. For the last statistics that we have, about. 75% of initial. decisions are made within six months of somebody making making the application. That is a good thing. And I think that is definitely where we see where there should be some government priority given to actually how you make sure that people have confidence in asylum system, and that is a system that is doing its basics right, which is making decisions as quickly as they can that are right the first time, and then are able either then supporting refugees who are found to be in need of protection, to get on with their lives and rebuild their lives and contribute fully to UK communities.
And for those who aren't found, the need for. protection there being some challenge, then then being a way for those people to be removed safely and humanely. And that's where we see some of the. challenges within the bill that we don't think actually address some of that context. I think previous panels had touched on the backlog now being the asylum system being at that appeal stage, which is almost an inevitable consequence of dealing with that initial decision backlog.
There are going to be more decisions, therefore more refusals. Therefore, there will be more people that go into that appeals process. There's probably around three times as many people in that appeals backlog now as the actual asylum. The asylum backlog itself. Some of that, I think, will just work its way through the system because as the government gets more onto on top of the asylum system itself, what sort of officials refer to as sort of having friction within asylum system, where they're making roughly the same number of decisions as those people entering it? But also, I think what we've seen as a result of the speeding up of decision making in recent years is a.
reduction in the quality of some of the decisions that we think is then put an unnecessary. pressure on that.
11:15
11:15
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And also making people sort of leaving people stuck in the asylum system for longer than they should be, in accommodation for longer than they should be at cost to the taxpayer, but also at cost to to those individuals. And this is borne out by the appeal statistics that we do get now from that first tier tribunal, which show that for the last year, around two thirds of appeals which are actually disposed of are either where the. tribunal has granted the appeal or actually.
increasingly where the the actual initial. decision has been withdrawn by the Home Office, because once they get towards that tribunal hearing, it's found that they're not going to be able to defend this. That's why we think there should be a laser focus on initial decision making and also looking at actually what else can be done around reducing that appeals backlog. Because one of our concerns around the IAA is that if the appeals backlog is almost a urgent problem, that needs to be dealt with.
Now, probably the best case scenario is that the IAA starts here. In some cases, at the back end of last year. It may well be the next election before it's really, really up and running. So we think there's more urgent things that could be done . Without
increasingly where the the actual initial. decision has been withdrawn by the Home Office, because once they get towards that tribunal hearing, it's found that they're not going to be able to defend this. That's why we think there should be a laser focus on initial decision making and also looking at actually what else can be done around reducing that appeals backlog. Because one of our concerns around the IAA is that if the appeals backlog is almost a urgent problem, that needs to be dealt with.
Now, probably the best case scenario is that the IAA starts here. In some cases, at the back end of last year. It may well be the next election before it's really, really up and running. So we think there's more urgent things that could be done . Without
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:17
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
Factor that into their decision making on what they do? I think to to take that decision making a few stages in terms of whether it will deter people from coming to the UK, I don't think it will make any real, real impact at all. I think previous panel talked about how complicated a body of law this is. I think for those of us who are engaged with successive immigration bills, this is quite. complex to expect somebody who is seeking protection to be following this and actually for Parliament or even organisations like the Refugee Council, to be the main place that people are getting their information from, I think doesn't reflect the.
reality where we are concerned around what we see as the potential impact on decision making is that I think it's important to remember that asylum support is only available to those asylum applicants who would otherwise be destitute. It is quite a high bar that the Home Office puts in place for someone to even access support in the first place. So our concern is that actually, if people are aware that they may be faced with a debt of around.
reality where we are concerned around what we see as the potential impact on decision making is that I think it's important to remember that asylum support is only available to those asylum applicants who would otherwise be destitute. It is quite a high bar that the Home Office puts in place for someone to even access support in the first place. So our concern is that actually, if people are aware that they may be faced with a debt of around.
11:18
11:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
That will prevent them from accessing support in the first place. And the alternative then for them is to actually remain destitute, which is obviously very bad for those individuals and for those families. But also, I think it's well established that putting people in destitution has negative consequences from a public health point of view and from wider.
11:18
11:18
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
We're also concerned by that provision, that one, although it applies to. anybody with some minor. exemptions who receives asylum support, the majority of people are ever going to be in a position to even start paying back some of that money, and people are going to go on to get protection. So we're then concerned that that is going to place people with take little money away from people, some money away from people who probably have very little in the first place, because also not having paid back that money would be a bar on settlement in the future, it could lead to people potentially looking to borrow that money from quite dangerous money lenders as well, and put people at risk of exploitation at that point.
And also, it's quite hard to work out exactly what this is going to look like, because there's not much detail on the face of the bill. There are there are potentially. disincentives for. refugees to work. We're actually, at the moment what we what we see in terms of our work with Refugee Council is that people want to be able to work, they want to contribute. And those people we support into employment, like the like the in the in the NHS, those people are contributing.
And actually, we think far better use of time and. resources would be to allow refugees to help refugees to overcome some of the barriers that they face, particularly in.
And also, it's quite hard to work out exactly what this is going to look like, because there's not much detail on the face of the bill. There are there are potentially. disincentives for. refugees to work. We're actually, at the moment what we what we see in terms of our work with Refugee Council is that people want to be able to work, they want to contribute. And those people we support into employment, like the like the in the in the NHS, those people are contributing.
And actually, we think far better use of time and. resources would be to allow refugees to help refugees to overcome some of the barriers that they face, particularly in.
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:19
Leigh Ingham
-
-
Leigh Ingham
If anyone else wanting to come in. Thank you, Lee Ingham. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you for your answers so far. We've had some interesting evidence before you came in, and I'm particularly interested in your. perception of the increase in the. application of article eight to some immigration claims. I I've I've met with the HR myself, and they've they've even said to me they've been surprised at some of the cases in the UK that where that has been applied.
So I'd be quite interested in whether yourselves have a position on that. And similarly, it's been said this morning in evidence that there could be a counter effect with the reduced potential, reduced number of ACH article eight claims, which could lead to an increase in article three claims.
So I'd be quite interested in whether yourselves have a position on that. And similarly, it's been said this morning in evidence that there could be a counter effect with the reduced potential, reduced number of ACH article eight claims, which could lead to an increase in article three claims.
11:20
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And I'd be interested in whether you have a if you've got a position on that as well. I think from the Refugee Council perspective, it's not something that that we focused on. It's not part and parcel of our of our day to day work, as it were. We certainly haven't done the research that previous panels have done into this. I think where we come through is that for our point of view, what's really important is those people arriving in the UK seeking.
protection are able to are able to seek that protection, have those cases heard. fairly and in a timely way that makes sure that those people who need protection, as I said previously, are able to get it and those people who don't unqualified are able to be returned and removed from the UK safely and humanely. We don't have the evidence to know, and it's not part of our work to know exactly how, maybe our particular. articles of .
protection are able to are able to seek that protection, have those cases heard. fairly and in a timely way that makes sure that those people who need protection, as I said previously, are able to get it and those people who don't unqualified are able to be returned and removed from the UK safely and humanely. We don't have the evidence to know, and it's not part of our work to know exactly how, maybe our particular. articles of .
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But that you can be in this country claiming asylum without claiming asylum support. It's not for everybody. You don't have to go claim it. So this means there will be more. people in the. country declining to claim asylum support because of the repayments, preferring to potentially live in destitution or be exploited. So can you talk about the risk of that?
11:21
11:21
11:21
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
And would that how that interacts with this ability to pay back these payments? It's a really important point about asylum support, and I think it is one of the gaps in some of the background material to the bill is that the Home Office doesn't release information about how many people in the asylum system are in receipt of support.
11:22
11:22
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The convention, the sort of understood wisdom has been that it's probably about. 50% of people. That reduces and goes up over time. So it's actually quite hard to know exactly how many people are going to be impacted by the asylum support, the asylum support measure. And yet it's absolutely our concern that that people will either not want to access support, and that numbers will go down when people really, really need it.
And I think the other thing that I didn't mention before is obviously for most people in that situation, they're not allowed to work. So their choice pretty much is either between the Home Office support, which is, you know, with accommodation provided on a no choice basis or destitution. And similarly, where we have concerns about the knock on impacts as well on people's integration. The other bit of the bill that we are particularly concerned around is core. protection and what both what's in the bill, but also the wider introduction of the core protection model, some of which started back in March this year.
Whereas those people who applied for asylum from the beginning of the march, if they found any protection, rather than getting five years leave and being on a five year route to settlement, we've already had around 2000 people being granted shorter periods of leave of 13 months, and we understand will be on a 20 year route to settlement. So that increased.
And I think the other thing that I didn't mention before is obviously for most people in that situation, they're not allowed to work. So their choice pretty much is either between the Home Office support, which is, you know, with accommodation provided on a no choice basis or destitution. And similarly, where we have concerns about the knock on impacts as well on people's integration. The other bit of the bill that we are particularly concerned around is core. protection and what both what's in the bill, but also the wider introduction of the core protection model, some of which started back in March this year.
Whereas those people who applied for asylum from the beginning of the march, if they found any protection, rather than getting five years leave and being on a five year route to settlement, we've already had around 2000 people being granted shorter periods of leave of 13 months, and we understand will be on a 20 year route to settlement. So that increased.
11:23
11:23
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
The feeling that people have no degree of permanence within the UK, I think evidence is quite strong that that undermines people's. ability to seek, seek employment, secure housing as well, and has a number of knock on impacts on people's lives. And I think the other impact of both of these two measures is that it's going to create it's going to require an awful lot of home Office bureaucracy in terms of running them, something like the asylum support charge.
The Home Office currently doesn't run anything like that, but it's going to have to have a way for everybody to receive support of the Home Office, knowing how much money has been paid by those.
The Home Office currently doesn't run anything like that, but it's going to have to have a way for everybody to receive support of the Home Office, knowing how much money has been paid by those.
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:23
Speaker 14
-
Speaker 14
If people are having to have those reviews, their status every two and a half years, potentially up to they've been in the country for two years, that's an awful lot more home office case working. There's been no impact assessment published by the government around that. We've done our own assessment and we've worked out that it roughly it could mean just over 1 million extra reviews over the first decade of
11:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
To reviews over the first decade of the. policies fully in practice as well. Alongside that core protection model, there's also going to be a new in-country work and study route. Again, that is going to be really it's really complex to design and fairness to officials, but also going to be really complex to run. And this is where we think there could be an awful lot more time and effort spent on making sure the system is doing some of those basics right, which first and foremost is making sure that decisions are made as quickly as they can be and that are right the first time.
And also making sure that those people who are in need of protection and are given refugee . Status
And also making sure that those people who are in need of protection and are given refugee . Status
11:24
11:24
11:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
fulfill their potential in the UK. Order, order. And then that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the committee to ask questions. Can I thank you on behalf of the committee for your time and evidence today. The committee will meet again at 2 p.m. this afternoon here in the Boothroyd Room to continue taking oral evidence. I invite the government whip to propose the adjournment.
Mr. president, thank you. The question is that further consideration of the bill be now adjourned. As many of that opinion say, I, I on the contrary. Now, I . Think
Mr. president, thank you. The question is that further consideration of the bill be now adjourned. As many of that opinion say, I, I on the contrary. Now, I . Think
11:25
14:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Broadcast. Before we start hearing from this afternoon's witnesses, do any members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with this bill? No. Okay. We will now hear from Doctor Madeleine Sumption MBE, director of the Migration Observatory, and ALP Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK. We have until 230 for this panel. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
14:01
14:01
14:02
14:02
14:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thanks. So yeah, maybe I'll take those separately. So starting with removals and then onto arrivals. So on removals, I think the two most relevant measures are the appeals reform and the article eight restrictions. I think that on article eight I think it is very reasonable to assume that that the restrictions would increase returns, not as much as it would increase refusals. So some people would remain in the UK having been refused the Home Office modelling.
I think the assumption it's very difficult to predict exactly how many people will be refused as a result of the measures, how many people of those would be returned, the modelling that they did for the impact assessment seems broadly reasonable to me. So they were suggesting that there might be around, well, just under 12,000 additional refusals as a result of the restrictions. And then some of those people, around 14%, would leave with no involvement of immigration enforcement at all.
Others would. But they suggest they the modelling suggests that just over half would remain in the UK, despite. Despite the refusal. Because. Obviously, it's one thing to restrict the. The legal challenges and the ability for people to get grants of status. It's another thing to actually remove them from the UK. The other. On appeals reform I don't have. I'm not going to get into the details about how much it will actually speed up the process.
I'm sure you have lots of other people talking about that and the sort of legal complexities of it. If it does have the intended effect of speeding up, of speeding up final refusals, then I think it's reasonable to assume that that would increase returns. It would make the it because it effectively means that the immigration enforcement budget can be used more efficiently, and that people and there's less chance of losing track of people during that lengthy period when an appeal is is ongoing.
But I don't have a view on precisely how effective it will be at speeding things up. So I think it is it's quite reasonable to assume that there would be an increase in returns as a result of the measures in in the bill. I think the deterrence piece of it, how would that feed through then into fewer people arriving is harder to to assess? There are some the evidence is not as good as I would like it to be.
There are a few studies that suggest that one of the things that reduces that makes the country less attractive is a lower probability of receiving a grant of of status, particularly if combined with a swift return. And so to the extent that the measures in the bill make returns faster, there is some evidence that for a particularly for low grant rate nationalities, for for people who are relatively unlikely to get asylum, that there could then be a knock on effect, so long as the refusals actually lead to to a return.
If you have people who are in the UK who have been refused but are not returned, then the available evidence and I should really stress that it's quite limited. The available evidence suggests that there would be less impact.
I think the assumption it's very difficult to predict exactly how many people will be refused as a result of the measures, how many people of those would be returned, the modelling that they did for the impact assessment seems broadly reasonable to me. So they were suggesting that there might be around, well, just under 12,000 additional refusals as a result of the restrictions. And then some of those people, around 14%, would leave with no involvement of immigration enforcement at all.
Others would. But they suggest they the modelling suggests that just over half would remain in the UK, despite. Despite the refusal. Because. Obviously, it's one thing to restrict the. The legal challenges and the ability for people to get grants of status. It's another thing to actually remove them from the UK. The other. On appeals reform I don't have. I'm not going to get into the details about how much it will actually speed up the process.
I'm sure you have lots of other people talking about that and the sort of legal complexities of it. If it does have the intended effect of speeding up, of speeding up final refusals, then I think it's reasonable to assume that that would increase returns. It would make the it because it effectively means that the immigration enforcement budget can be used more efficiently, and that people and there's less chance of losing track of people during that lengthy period when an appeal is is ongoing.
But I don't have a view on precisely how effective it will be at speeding things up. So I think it is it's quite reasonable to assume that there would be an increase in returns as a result of the measures in in the bill. I think the deterrence piece of it, how would that feed through then into fewer people arriving is harder to to assess? There are some the evidence is not as good as I would like it to be.
There are a few studies that suggest that one of the things that reduces that makes the country less attractive is a lower probability of receiving a grant of of status, particularly if combined with a swift return. And so to the extent that the measures in the bill make returns faster, there is some evidence that for a particularly for low grant rate nationalities, for for people who are relatively unlikely to get asylum, that there could then be a knock on effect, so long as the refusals actually lead to to a return.
If you have people who are in the UK who have been refused but are not returned, then the available evidence and I should really stress that it's quite limited. The available evidence suggests that there would be less impact.
14:08
14:09
14:09
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
thought you asked me. Yes. I'll carry on if you want to answer. Firstly, can I say that the bill is is a step in the right direction, and I'd like to take this opportunity of commending the Home Secretary for actually having the the courage to introduce a bill with measures that are going to have some sort of impact, what that impact is going to be, I'm not sure. There are also bits in the bill that, frankly, are going to have the opposite effect, are more likely to attract people, but I'll come back to that later, if I may.
Deterrence, frankly, the only thing that will deter if we're talking about the boats, the only thing that will deter both those coming in the boats and the smugglers themselves, the gangs will be detention on arrival, speedy action to deal with them and remove them. Only that will work. I have no doubt about that. And there's nothing in the bill that will allow a allow that to happen.
Have any measures of the sort that are being proposed worked? I don't think that anything in the bill actually reflects the sort of measures that, in certain countries have had the desired effect, deterring and keeping people away. If we look at Australia, Denmark, America, dare I mention them, Greece, even the sort of measures that they've introduced that have had an impact on at least the numbers applying for asylum bear no resemblance to what is being proposed in the bill.
So will, will, will the bill have any major impact or deter? I don't think it will do either, sadly, I I'm afraid I think it's a it's a bit of a wasted opportunity as the last bill where I also gave evidence with Tony Smith, who's following me. That also in effect took away, cancelled out all the deterrent factors that were already in place. And this bill, whilst having little things here and there essentially is all about process as well.
I welcome the introduction of the of the appeals authority, the new Appeals authority, although I would add that it seems to be going back to the system that was in place 45 years ago when I was an immigration officer in Dover and appeals first appeared on the scene. That again, that may have an impact on on gaming the system, for example, as the Home Secretary argues, but significant impact? I don't think so.
Deterrence, frankly, the only thing that will deter if we're talking about the boats, the only thing that will deter both those coming in the boats and the smugglers themselves, the gangs will be detention on arrival, speedy action to deal with them and remove them. Only that will work. I have no doubt about that. And there's nothing in the bill that will allow a allow that to happen.
Have any measures of the sort that are being proposed worked? I don't think that anything in the bill actually reflects the sort of measures that, in certain countries have had the desired effect, deterring and keeping people away. If we look at Australia, Denmark, America, dare I mention them, Greece, even the sort of measures that they've introduced that have had an impact on at least the numbers applying for asylum bear no resemblance to what is being proposed in the bill.
So will, will, will the bill have any major impact or deter? I don't think it will do either, sadly, I I'm afraid I think it's a it's a bit of a wasted opportunity as the last bill where I also gave evidence with Tony Smith, who's following me. That also in effect took away, cancelled out all the deterrent factors that were already in place. And this bill, whilst having little things here and there essentially is all about process as well.
I welcome the introduction of the of the appeals authority, the new Appeals authority, although I would add that it seems to be going back to the system that was in place 45 years ago when I was an immigration officer in Dover and appeals first appeared on the scene. That again, that may have an impact on on gaming the system, for example, as the Home Secretary argues, but significant impact? I don't think so.
14:16
14:16
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
you very much. Thank you both for coming to give evidence with us today. Are you both have a role in an emphasize the importance of evidence and evaluation. So I was wondering whether you could give us some idea today of what kind of metrics you think we should be using in the future to judge whether our reforms have been successful.
14:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So I think well, it depends on obviously, there are several different goals of the bill. And so the metric would depend on that, on the deterrence stuff that we've just been discussing. Obviously , small boats arrivals and asylum applications are the most relevant ones. I think that it would be good. There are some things that couldn't be tracked now because the publish that at least certainly in the published data, but that could potentially be tracked in future.
So for example, we actually have remarkably few statistics on human rights grants. How many people are granted, how many of those what happens to those grants over time, you know, or so what happens to refusals over time? So how many refusals are overturned in court? Now? All of those things could be could be tracked, but currently the data don't exist. And my understanding is that they don't exist internally either because the impact assessment used a a sample of around 3000 cases, rather than just using full, full statistics for many of them.
So I think there is probably some statistical work that could be done to, to try and track the impacts of the human rights measures a bit more, and also then to link the returns to the data and returns to the data and what happens to people before that return. So, for example, one of the outcomes that the impact assessment looks at, which is potentially very important, is how many people are refused as a result of the changes, but never actually removed from the country.
That being a sort of, I think most people would qualify as an undesirable outcome in the sense that you have people who are still in the UK. There may be costs associated. If they're destitute, the local authority will have to support them. It increases the unauthorized population. Under the current statistics, we would never know to what extent that was happening, but in theory, it's all stuff that would be possible to track using the data. And then the other big thing, of course, on the appeals backlog, I think the major metric of.
The impact of of changes to the appeals system would be how does that backlog change over time? And then, of course, looking at the numbers of onward appeals, if that to the extent that that becomes a problem, which I'm sure other witnesses are, are, are debating. So data on all of that, on people's journey through the asylum system and appeals system, how long does that take and what metrics of accuracy of the decisions and how many decisions are overturned? All of those, I think would be important metrics.
So for example, we actually have remarkably few statistics on human rights grants. How many people are granted, how many of those what happens to those grants over time, you know, or so what happens to refusals over time? So how many refusals are overturned in court? Now? All of those things could be could be tracked, but currently the data don't exist. And my understanding is that they don't exist internally either because the impact assessment used a a sample of around 3000 cases, rather than just using full, full statistics for many of them.
So I think there is probably some statistical work that could be done to, to try and track the impacts of the human rights measures a bit more, and also then to link the returns to the data and returns to the data and what happens to people before that return. So, for example, one of the outcomes that the impact assessment looks at, which is potentially very important, is how many people are refused as a result of the changes, but never actually removed from the country.
That being a sort of, I think most people would qualify as an undesirable outcome in the sense that you have people who are still in the UK. There may be costs associated. If they're destitute, the local authority will have to support them. It increases the unauthorized population. Under the current statistics, we would never know to what extent that was happening, but in theory, it's all stuff that would be possible to track using the data. And then the other big thing, of course, on the appeals backlog, I think the major metric of.
The impact of of changes to the appeals system would be how does that backlog change over time? And then, of course, looking at the numbers of onward appeals, if that to the extent that that becomes a problem, which I'm sure other witnesses are, are, are debating. So data on all of that, on people's journey through the asylum system and appeals system, how long does that take and what metrics of accuracy of the decisions and how many decisions are overturned? All of those, I think would be important metrics.
14:22
14:22
14:22
14:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I suppose the the principal metric will be the extent to which its speeded up, how long it takes actually to deal with someone who arrives, claims asylum and goes through the system. And then a decision is made. But also the extent to which, having made that decision, appropriate action can be taken, i.e. either removed or indeed be permitted to say. It's it's going to take a couple of years.
And this is another problem I find with the bill that here we are again proposing fresh measures. And. However, welcome or not, they are, the fact is that it's going to be three years down the road before we know what the impact is. And I just don't think that that addresses the level of urgency that the problem requires. If it does indeed. Discourage people from coming, discourage, repeat after people one after the other, then I think that's a metric that can also be used as to whether or not what was intended is is being achieved, but it's going to be a couple of years at least, if not longer, before we know.
And this is another problem I find with the bill that here we are again proposing fresh measures. And. However, welcome or not, they are, the fact is that it's going to be three years down the road before we know what the impact is. And I just don't think that that addresses the level of urgency that the problem requires. If it does indeed. Discourage people from coming, discourage, repeat after people one after the other, then I think that's a metric that can also be used as to whether or not what was intended is is being achieved, but it's going to be a couple of years at least, if not longer, before we know.
14:26
14:26
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Thank you, chair, and good afternoon. And thank you for joining us this afternoon. Question to both of you. Given that you've just mentioned the the the level of urgency the country faces with the challenge we've got, and also remembering the strict international legal frameworks that that contain some of the the legislation that we can enter into, what single policy would you like to see in the bill? That's not in the bill. Now that you think would have the biggest impact on reducing illegal migration? I know it's a difficult question.
It's the it's the golden question, but I'd be really interested to know from two experts what you, you think would have the given the urgency and the legal frameworks that we're working within, would have the biggest impact on preventing the illegal migration that we're being challenged with.
It's the it's the golden question, but I'd be really interested to know from two experts what you, you think would have the given the urgency and the legal frameworks that we're working within, would have the biggest impact on preventing the illegal migration that we're being challenged with.
14:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So if your goal is reducing the unauthorised arrivals, then I think most of the measures where there's evidence that they are effective don't actually require legislation. So there is evidence from other countries that physical enforcement. So things like intercepting boats where it can be done safely is it can have a large impact. There is also evidence that a lower grant rate, which is something that UK now already has, can has an impact in reducing the number of people who apply.
And there is also evidence that returns agreements. So for example, a much larger version of 1 in 1 out with France would would have an impact. And none of those things, they're difficult for their own reasons, but they wouldn't require legislation.
And there is also evidence that returns agreements. So for example, a much larger version of 1 in 1 out with France would would have an impact. And none of those things, they're difficult for their own reasons, but they wouldn't require legislation.
14:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So I agree with that. Can I start with by saying that I believe that the biggest flaw in the bill is the further opening up of the border, effectively with the safe and legal routes. Which will allow the approved of organizations, institutions and employers to to act as sponsors. This, if it actually works, may attract some of those who would otherwise have crossed in boats or got into the backs of lorries, or by whatever means by by other means.
I don't think it will do that. I suspect that the boats, if they slow down the numbers coming across, slow down. It won't be because of the bill. But. There will be the effect of of making fewer people, perhaps attempting the the crossing. So you could argue that that's in itself going to be successful because it means that fewer people are putting their lives at risk, but nevertheless opening it up in the way that's being proposed so that universities, employers, NGOs, communities I that potentially opens up gives an opportunity to some 120 million people around the world.
The the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees at the end of 2025. Some figures I saw suggested that there were something like 118 million people displaced. Now, any one of those potentially can take advantage of of this new route that is going to come into being with this with this bill , that it effectively means, again, that anyone with a friend who can manage to persuade an employer to take them on or indeed employers go out looking for, for these people or universities who presumably someone's going to pay for, for those who are going to be studying there.
But it's I my my own fear is that this will put the Boris wave in the shade, potentially. I think that the the numbers that are going to be attracted are they're going to become a serious problem in the way that those who've arrived over the preceding five years have have become a problem and that I, I think it's probably too late to do anything about that. But three years down the road, I have a feeling that we'll be talking about legislation, about how to end that process.
And, and that that I think is is unfortunate, to say the least.
I don't think it will do that. I suspect that the boats, if they slow down the numbers coming across, slow down. It won't be because of the bill. But. There will be the effect of of making fewer people, perhaps attempting the the crossing. So you could argue that that's in itself going to be successful because it means that fewer people are putting their lives at risk, but nevertheless opening it up in the way that's being proposed so that universities, employers, NGOs, communities I that potentially opens up gives an opportunity to some 120 million people around the world.
The the United Nations High Commissioner for refugees at the end of 2025. Some figures I saw suggested that there were something like 118 million people displaced. Now, any one of those potentially can take advantage of of this new route that is going to come into being with this with this bill , that it effectively means, again, that anyone with a friend who can manage to persuade an employer to take them on or indeed employers go out looking for, for these people or universities who presumably someone's going to pay for, for those who are going to be studying there.
But it's I my my own fear is that this will put the Boris wave in the shade, potentially. I think that the the numbers that are going to be attracted are they're going to become a serious problem in the way that those who've arrived over the preceding five years have have become a problem and that I, I think it's probably too late to do anything about that. But three years down the road, I have a feeling that we'll be talking about legislation, about how to end that process.
And, and that that I think is is unfortunate, to say the least.
14:37
14:37
14:37
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you very much, chair. My question is also for you, ALP. Just picking on picking up on some of the comments you made earlier. You made reference to Australia, Denmark, USA and Greece, who have reduced numbers applying for asylum by measures that bear no resemblance to what is in this bill. So what should we put in this bill to replicate the success of those countries, do you think?
14:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, we could first of all start by declaring our intention to come out of the EC. I think human rights by a country like ours can be dealt with perfectly well without our having to be signed up to the EC. There's also the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, and I think we could pull out of that. I think we should be declaring, announcing that the Human Rights Act is going to be repealed.
I think all that would allow us to deal with the sort of people who are understandably looking for a better life. I have no problem with that. But are we really saying that anyone and everyone of 118 million people is going to be able to to come here? The other thing that I would do, and this may sound sort of relatively minor, is putting the onus on on arrivals on we used to call them passengers in the old days, but on, on the migrants arriving put put putting the onus on them to really satisfy the immigration official, dealing with them on their bona fides.
That's what used to happen. Our courts have pushed us in the opposite direction. We now have to disprove. And if we haven't got any evidence that would back that up, we are effectively saying, okay, we can't. We can't prove it. Otherwise. We don't know who you are. You haven't got a passport, but we're going to give you the benefit of the doubt because the Home Office can't provide the evidence really to to do otherwise.
That that's absurd. It's also dangerous. So there are the things that I would include in the bill those perhaps you would expect me to say a lot of that. If you look at what the Americans have done, I know what everyone feels about some politicians in the United States. Nevertheless, they have actually been successful to closing the southern border to illegal immigration. If we were able to put in place effective measures to stop those coming across the channel, not just in boats, but in in other ways as well.
If the French were sensible enough and was serious enough to stop the whole thing, frankly, they should be volunteering to take the migrants who make their way to us from their. As should the EU. That's not going to happen any time soon, I suspect. So all in all, I'm a little disheartened by both the bill, the measures in it, and what is likely to happen. Thank you.
I think all that would allow us to deal with the sort of people who are understandably looking for a better life. I have no problem with that. But are we really saying that anyone and everyone of 118 million people is going to be able to to come here? The other thing that I would do, and this may sound sort of relatively minor, is putting the onus on on arrivals on we used to call them passengers in the old days, but on, on the migrants arriving put put putting the onus on them to really satisfy the immigration official, dealing with them on their bona fides.
That's what used to happen. Our courts have pushed us in the opposite direction. We now have to disprove. And if we haven't got any evidence that would back that up, we are effectively saying, okay, we can't. We can't prove it. Otherwise. We don't know who you are. You haven't got a passport, but we're going to give you the benefit of the doubt because the Home Office can't provide the evidence really to to do otherwise.
That that's absurd. It's also dangerous. So there are the things that I would include in the bill those perhaps you would expect me to say a lot of that. If you look at what the Americans have done, I know what everyone feels about some politicians in the United States. Nevertheless, they have actually been successful to closing the southern border to illegal immigration. If we were able to put in place effective measures to stop those coming across the channel, not just in boats, but in in other ways as well.
If the French were sensible enough and was serious enough to stop the whole thing, frankly, they should be volunteering to take the migrants who make their way to us from their. As should the EU. That's not going to happen any time soon, I suspect. So all in all, I'm a little disheartened by both the bill, the measures in it, and what is likely to happen. Thank you.
14:45
14:45
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Mohammed, good afternoon. You made some initial commentary about welcoming the bill and suggesting that the small boat crossings, reducing them. What is when the bill is not sufficient for for that purpose. But I wonder if you could, first of all provide some commentary from your experience on why it might be then, that small boat crossings, even before this legislation is enacted, is down 41% already.
And where do you think this legislation intersects with the need for further law enforcement across, across borders and actually where it intersects with the fact that it is after leaving the European Union, in fact, that small boat crossings have risen and we've had less armoury as such and flexibility to to deal with them. And secondly, you're purporting and highlighting the American experience in terms of reducing immigration and returns, but presumably a model where there is a level of kind of aggressive behavior on the part of Ice agents where American citizens are being shot dead in the streets is not something you're presumably advocating that we do.
And where do you think this legislation intersects with the need for further law enforcement across, across borders and actually where it intersects with the fact that it is after leaving the European Union, in fact, that small boat crossings have risen and we've had less armoury as such and flexibility to to deal with them. And secondly, you're purporting and highlighting the American experience in terms of reducing immigration and returns, but presumably a model where there is a level of kind of aggressive behavior on the part of Ice agents where American citizens are being shot dead in the streets is not something you're presumably advocating that we do.
14:47
14:48
14:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think securing your borders is totally British, frankly. And we have been doing it for millennia, and we seem to have forgotten that we are sovereign state and can decide who can enter our country and who can't. But that aside. Certainly the Americans have, have have just locked the border. They've stopped anyone who makes their way into the United States. The southern border is returned.
I'm not suggesting that we put a massive wall on the south coast and just let them get on with it. However, I do believe that detaining on arrival, dealing with quickly and returning to France or wherever they've come from is doing something similar. In other words, stopping people from from entering entering the country illegally, the Danes, they've also introduced measures that I don't think we ever will. For example, if if people arrive with with money, with with luxury goods, whatever, then these are confiscated.
The Greeks, they're actually pushing they're not admitting to it. But we know from reports that they're pushing boats back to Turkey. All these things really, if we were to do them, I, I have no doubt that we would stop the boats coming over. The only reason that the boats have increased from 299 in 20 18 to 41,000 last year, 18,000 at the moment so far this year, which is still massive.
Frankly, the only reason that that has continued with over 210,000 arriving since 2018, is because they can. And having arrived here, they get to stay. That's what we've got to address. And that is what this bill does not address.
I'm not suggesting that we put a massive wall on the south coast and just let them get on with it. However, I do believe that detaining on arrival, dealing with quickly and returning to France or wherever they've come from is doing something similar. In other words, stopping people from from entering entering the country illegally, the Danes, they've also introduced measures that I don't think we ever will. For example, if if people arrive with with money, with with luxury goods, whatever, then these are confiscated.
The Greeks, they're actually pushing they're not admitting to it. But we know from reports that they're pushing boats back to Turkey. All these things really, if we were to do them, I, I have no doubt that we would stop the boats coming over. The only reason that the boats have increased from 299 in 20 18 to 41,000 last year, 18,000 at the moment so far this year, which is still massive.
Frankly, the only reason that that has continued with over 210,000 arriving since 2018, is because they can. And having arrived here, they get to stay. That's what we've got to address. And that is what this bill does not address.
14:53
14:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I'm sorry, doctor, but that's really totally. It just isn't. So having dealt with the European Union, worked in the European Union before I retired many years ago, and also being involved and certainly monitoring the exchanges and Dublin and the various incarnations of the Dublin Agreement. It didn't work. Very few people went in either direction and it took it took eons, months and months to arrange everything.
It was no deterrent or. I'm
It was no deterrent or. I'm
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Yes. So I served in the Home Office from 1972 until 2013 at all levels, from immigration officer up to director general when I when I retired. So I saw a lot of pressures on lots of governments from lots of different colors about this very issue, about how to stop illegal immigration and how to remove those that shouldn't be here. So lots of experience there. I also would add, I did go back into the home office as a consultant a couple of years ago to advise on the implementation of the Illegal Migration Act and the setting up of the Illegal Migration Operational Command, which gave me experience over the boats issue, which weren't actually happening.
Fortunately for me, which weren't happening during my service, people were coming differently in the backs of lorries or different or through the common travel area. So the boats phenomenon is relatively recent, but I have got some knowledge and experience of that. And in all of that, in my view, the only way to tackle this is firstly, you need to stop illegal intake. In other words, you need to stop people getting to the UK in the first place.
That's what we did with the carriers liability legislation. That's why we put the Border Force in France. That's why we stopped people getting on ships or aircraft to come here illegally. I think that's one of the reasons why the smugglers shifted to the beaches, because we can't do that on the beaches. But your first priority ought to be try to reduce asylum intake wherever you can. The second issue is to remove people swiftly who do make it through and get into the territory and remove them swiftly, because that will then send a deterrent message to those waiting to come in France, or from wherever it may be from coming over.
So I think those are the two two metrics intake, I would say about asylum intake. It's not not just the boats. Asylum intake, last time I checked was between 80 and 90,000. That's too high. You've got people coming with visas. You should be able to stop a lot of that because they're all fingerprinted when they're given a visa and they're fingerprinted when they claim asylum. When I was in post, we would have a, you know, on a Monday morning, a review of who got visas and are now in the asylum.
And that would be challenged back to the post to say, why are you issuing visas to people who are then coming
Fortunately for me, which weren't happening during my service, people were coming differently in the backs of lorries or different or through the common travel area. So the boats phenomenon is relatively recent, but I have got some knowledge and experience of that. And in all of that, in my view, the only way to tackle this is firstly, you need to stop illegal intake. In other words, you need to stop people getting to the UK in the first place.
That's what we did with the carriers liability legislation. That's why we put the Border Force in France. That's why we stopped people getting on ships or aircraft to come here illegally. I think that's one of the reasons why the smugglers shifted to the beaches, because we can't do that on the beaches. But your first priority ought to be try to reduce asylum intake wherever you can. The second issue is to remove people swiftly who do make it through and get into the territory and remove them swiftly, because that will then send a deterrent message to those waiting to come in France, or from wherever it may be from coming over.
So I think those are the two two metrics intake, I would say about asylum intake. It's not not just the boats. Asylum intake, last time I checked was between 80 and 90,000. That's too high. You've got people coming with visas. You should be able to stop a lot of that because they're all fingerprinted when they're given a visa and they're fingerprinted when they claim asylum. When I was in post, we would have a, you know, on a Monday morning, a review of who got visas and are now in the asylum.
And that would be challenged back to the post to say, why are you issuing visas to people who are then coming
15:02
15:02
15:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Biggest border control measure that you think we're missing from this ? So I think the problem is what it does. It's more what it doesn't do. And that is to exclude people coming from safe third countries like France from claiming protection. That was the intention between the Illegal Migration Act. There is provision in the.
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They're not in immediate fear of persecution. So we've interpreted if you come from France on a small boat, you could have claimed asylum. You didn't have to, but you could have claimed asylum there. Ergo, you're not going to be granted asylum in this country. The last government relied on that for the Rwanda plan. This government relies on that for the one in, one out scheme. So there is provision now to exclude people if they come via that route from claiming asylum.
There isn't provision to do is to exclude them from claiming protection under human rights or under modern slavery. Now, there are some things in here that I applaud. There are attempts to tighten up on article eight of the Echr to to to stop claims under some claims under human rights and also a modern slavery provisions as well, which are to be applauded. But whilst you continue to run a system where somebody just simply needs to get within the 12 mile zone and then make a claim for.
protection and bring them ashore and process that claim in the UK, then I'm afraid that's not going to that's always going to send a message back, particularly from those high intake. nationalities that we're talking about, like Eritrea and Sudan and Somalia, Iran, that. actually that's all you really need to do, get within the 12 mile zone, claim protection. And it's very, very unlikely. I think only about 4% of those have ever been removed that they're going to be removed.
I'm afraid that still creates a factor for migrants that are unsettled in the Schengen zone, don't want to stay in France and are determined to come across here. And it still fuels the smugglers business model because there's profit in this. This is international organised . Crime,
There isn't provision to do is to exclude them from claiming protection under human rights or under modern slavery. Now, there are some things in here that I applaud. There are attempts to tighten up on article eight of the Echr to to to stop claims under some claims under human rights and also a modern slavery provisions as well, which are to be applauded. But whilst you continue to run a system where somebody just simply needs to get within the 12 mile zone and then make a claim for.
protection and bring them ashore and process that claim in the UK, then I'm afraid that's not going to that's always going to send a message back, particularly from those high intake. nationalities that we're talking about, like Eritrea and Sudan and Somalia, Iran, that. actually that's all you really need to do, get within the 12 mile zone, claim protection. And it's very, very unlikely. I think only about 4% of those have ever been removed that they're going to be removed.
I'm afraid that still creates a factor for migrants that are unsettled in the Schengen zone, don't want to stay in France and are determined to come across here. And it still fuels the smugglers business model because there's profit in this. This is international organised . Crime,
15:06
15:06
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
market. Thank you Minister. Thank you very much. Yeah. I'd like to focus, if I may, on the measures that are in the bill. And you made some reference there to particularly the ones on modern slavery. I wondered if you could just expand on your thoughts on how those provisions might make it harder for individuals who've . Got
15:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
fictitious claims to stop themselves from being removed. Yeah. So, I mean, I think, you know, this is really about the asylum process, this bill rather than law enforcement as such. I think your bill last year was more about the law enforcement. This is about the asylum process. And I think there are some good things in here. As I say, I do applaud the article eight.
15:07
15:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Because that is quite often used as a lever quite late in the process, after someone's been here for quite a while and have been through the process, and suddenly you get an article eight claim because they've developed a connection in the UK. So I think that's right. That's going to help to reduce the pull factor, the tighter protection arrangements in terms of 30 months at a time. I like the idea of that. My only counsel against that is that the Home Office, in my experience, tends to.
automatically grant and grant and grant, because it's a lot easier than refusing. And that might just become an. automatic three, you know, turnover of grants for however long you allow people to stay. Can I just say, I do think you ought to look at who's going home and if people are going back to their own country on holiday, when they've got a claim for a refugee status, we can establish that we have the passenger information. We can cross-match that to your asylum records.
I don't think if people go back to their own country, once they've been given some kind of protection status, they should be allowed back in, frankly, because they're clearly not in fear of persecution. So I would add that the faster appeals process absolutely essential. The problem with the appeals process. It went over to the Ministry of Justice years ago when they split up a home Office and MoJ, and it doesn't seem to me to have been really bothered about it.
I've got other things on their plate. So, you know, it's over a year now backlog, so you've got to try and get a grip of that. I don't know how you get that in the home office and how you persuade them, but I think this is a good idea. You've really got to get that end to end. process going right. I like the idea of recouping funds, public funds from people, a bit like the student loan scheme.
If people have come here and been a draw on public funds and they then get into the workplace, why would you not claw back some of that money into the public purse? So I think that all of those things may reduce pull factors. You know, I do I do think they are really good.
automatically grant and grant and grant, because it's a lot easier than refusing. And that might just become an. automatic three, you know, turnover of grants for however long you allow people to stay. Can I just say, I do think you ought to look at who's going home and if people are going back to their own country on holiday, when they've got a claim for a refugee status, we can establish that we have the passenger information. We can cross-match that to your asylum records.
I don't think if people go back to their own country, once they've been given some kind of protection status, they should be allowed back in, frankly, because they're clearly not in fear of persecution. So I would add that the faster appeals process absolutely essential. The problem with the appeals process. It went over to the Ministry of Justice years ago when they split up a home Office and MoJ, and it doesn't seem to me to have been really bothered about it.
I've got other things on their plate. So, you know, it's over a year now backlog, so you've got to try and get a grip of that. I don't know how you get that in the home office and how you persuade them, but I think this is a good idea. You've really got to get that end to end. process going right. I like the idea of recouping funds, public funds from people, a bit like the student loan scheme.
If people have come here and been a draw on public funds and they then get into the workplace, why would you not claw back some of that money into the public purse? So I think that all of those things may reduce pull factors. You know, I do I do think they are really good.
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Mrs. Jardine. Now, you were director general of Border Force, as we've just heard, and you talk about the importance of stopping people coming in the first place. But Border Force only has five ocean going cutters and six coastal patrol vessels. Is there a fundamental issue here of not having the assets for. agencies of the state to do their job, and .
Something
Something
15:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
that's not addressed in this bill, but will make a meaningful difference. I think the Border Force will enact whatever their operational instructions are, and their operational instructions are drawn from legislation and powers and authorities. So it doesn't matter how many boats you've got out there in the channel. The current situation is if someone comes within a 12 mile zone under the law of the sea, you're obliged. And quite rightly, I think saving lives is paramount. You're obliged to bring them on board your vessel.
The problem then becomes that once they're within the.
The problem then becomes that once they're within the.
15:12
15:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
then accrue all of these rights for asylum applications for HR and modern slavery applications. So I don't think it's a question of resource. I am a bit worried about resources, given what we saw in Portsmouth last week, because I don't think we've got the bandwidth to cover the entire coastline anymore. You know, we've been focusing what resources we have on the short straits. It's clearly the smugglers are moving along the coast. So I think we need to be adaptable to be able to do that.
So clearly, you know, they would always ask they would always take more resources if they're on offer. But for me, it's more about how do you actually get those people coming off those boats properly screened, not cleared within 24 or 48 hours. That's long enough. Even whatever your views on immigration, you've got to properly, thoroughly screen people. The passport tells a story, and a passport will tell you all sorts of things. We don't know their date of birth.
We don't know their nationality. Their biographical checks are pretty useless. Biometric checks will only. So all I'm saying is I think we need to be detaining people at least for longer than.
So clearly, you know, they would always ask they would always take more resources if they're on offer. But for me, it's more about how do you actually get those people coming off those boats properly screened, not cleared within 24 or 48 hours. That's long enough. Even whatever your views on immigration, you've got to properly, thoroughly screen people. The passport tells a story, and a passport will tell you all sorts of things. We don't know their date of birth.
We don't know their nationality. Their biographical checks are pretty useless. Biometric checks will only. So all I'm saying is I think we need to be detaining people at least for longer than.
15:14
15:14
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
of the Border Force are not really within the scope of the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. I only take the opportunity of the ex Director General of Border Force in front of us. And the wider point that's been made, of course, by government is this that this bill has a deterrent effect. But while you've got a. crossings whereby there is no Border Force personnel at sea, there are no boats at sea in the vicinity and a life saving charity, the RNLI are being relied upon to do a sort of .
Quasi
Quasi
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Whether that is. international or whether it is domestic. It's that which makes it means that we have to go through an extremely lengthy. process of going through their asylum claim. It makes it very difficult to establish some of the facts. It makes it very difficult to remove them, even in cases where we have actually refused to give them a grant of asylum. So I think it was mentioned earlier by by Tony Smith, something like.
4% of all smoked by small boat migrants who've come since. 2018 have been removed. And if you look at those, the largest number are Albanians. And that's because we could essentially have a way to send them home without breaching human rights. That's unfortunately not true for the vast majority of other nationalities that are coming here. And until that human rights . Issue is tackled, the
4% of all smoked by small boat migrants who've come since. 2018 have been removed. And if you look at those, the largest number are Albanians. And that's because we could essentially have a way to send them home without breaching human rights. That's unfortunately not true for the vast majority of other nationalities that are coming here. And until that human rights . Issue is tackled, the
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The number of those coming on the study route is up four times, and I think the number of those coming in the work route is up 22 times. So there's a lot of people abusing the legal way of getting into the country and then claiming asylum, often suspiciously close to the end of their visa. There's nothing really in the bill that would tackle that. I think actually that is an area . That
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
of sort of strung out appeals and deterrent? Absolutely. So in terms of the strong appeals, we've got the new Immigration Appeal Authority, which is supposed to help tackle that. The difficulty there, which will touch on article eight, is that you are potentially using people who are not fully legally trained as adjudicators. Now, there are other examples of countries which do this, for example, Denmark, Canada and I think Norway. But all of those have relatively high bars for people to become adjudicators.
And in a lot of cases, I think they actually do end up being lawyers. Anyway, the Australians did have a similar system, and I believe they cancelled it precisely because the paperwork was being done badly enough that they were ending up having to redo things or the wrong decisions were being made. So although bad decisions are being made now, potentially this could lead to worse decisions depending on the quality of the people that come in. So we cannot know that quality.
But at the moment, that sort of lack of qualifications in the. legislation is a potential danger on article eight itself. What we're seeing here is we're seeing restrictions. We're seeing sort of a narrowing down of things, which is good and which will reduce the number of people who are able to use that. But it's only going to be a minority of cases even when we're dealing with people who've come here illegally. So the majority of people claiming under article eight now will not be affected.
And I believe the Home Office estimate that something like 50% of the ones who will now be refused, if this legislation passes, will remain in the country . Illegally,
And in a lot of cases, I think they actually do end up being lawyers. Anyway, the Australians did have a similar system, and I believe they cancelled it precisely because the paperwork was being done badly enough that they were ending up having to redo things or the wrong decisions were being made. So although bad decisions are being made now, potentially this could lead to worse decisions depending on the quality of the people that come in. So we cannot know that quality.
But at the moment, that sort of lack of qualifications in the. legislation is a potential danger on article eight itself. What we're seeing here is we're seeing restrictions. We're seeing sort of a narrowing down of things, which is good and which will reduce the number of people who are able to use that. But it's only going to be a minority of cases even when we're dealing with people who've come here illegally. So the majority of people claiming under article eight now will not be affected.
And I believe the Home Office estimate that something like 50% of the ones who will now be refused, if this legislation passes, will remain in the country . Illegally,
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record? Afternoon. Thank you for inviting the IRC and myself to the evidence. I'm a policy manager at the IRC International Rescue Committee is a global humanitarian organization. We support people affected by conflict and crisis from the moment they're. displaced .. Until we're rebuilding their lives in . Safety
15:28
15:28
15:29
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Country carry any immigration consequence? So we we would say that we don't want people to be making dangerous journeys in order to receive refugee protection. That's why we advocate for a range of different safe routes so that. refugees have got an option that doesn't involve risking their lives to get to the UK. We acknowledge, however, that at the moment, other than the one in, one out scheme, there isn't an.
alternative for people to claim asylum from outside UK territory. So if people claim asylum having made an irregular journey, then if they've gone through the asylum process and gained refugee.
alternative for people to claim asylum from outside UK territory. So if people claim asylum having made an irregular journey, then if they've gone through the asylum process and gained refugee.
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Mr. Tully, thank you very much. Thanks for joining us this afternoon. I think you mentioned in your earlier answer that there aren't enough sufficient routes to claim asylum. But obviously, a lot of the people that we see here coming on, particularly on the small boats, have come through another safe country. I think your organisation has said before they believe it's a secondary issue for those individuals who are bypassing safe routes.
How do you think that enables us to . Support a
How do you think that enables us to . Support a
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I think it's about it's about 14 in the ranking of EU plus. countries in terms of how many asylum seekers they how many asylum applications we have per capita. So we're quite far down the list. The nature of our. geography means that people need to be able to cross across the channel in some way in order to reach the UK for protection. At the moment, there is not significant. There is not.
significant safe routes in order for people to get to the UK. We're talking about hundreds at the moment. So in the absence of of safe, safe route for people to get here, in order for the UK to play its part in the in the the kind of obligations of the UK Refugee Convention. If people do arrive here and they've had their claim processed and they've then then they should be granted the full entitlement to refugee status.
significant safe routes in order for people to get to the UK. We're talking about hundreds at the moment. So in the absence of of safe, safe route for people to get here, in order for the UK to play its part in the in the the kind of obligations of the UK Refugee Convention. If people do arrive here and they've had their claim processed and they've then then they should be granted the full entitlement to refugee status.
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
would your organisation want to open up? I'm starting by saying that we welcome the three new safe routes. That's the development and that's gone. Alongside this. We are that our main our main concern around this bill is around clause 21 and the impact on refugee integration. Ultimately, we would like to see safe routes coming from so . That people
15:40
15:40
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Regions so that they don't have to travel to Europe from where and how many. So the opportunity of having safe routes means that the government can control the. numbers and can control where people come from. So that would provide a controlled route so that the government would know where people are coming from, who they are, and they can control . That in
15:40
15:41
15:41
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
which was in clause 21. Yeah. Okay. And what and what changes would you like to see to clause 21? Just to make sure I don't go off track. Chair so clause 21 specifically, what does your organisation want to see and why? And then what is the implication in terms of the potential number of asylum seekers you . Would
15:41
15:41
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
claiming in the UK compared with today? Clause 21 seeks to introduce the core protection framework. Our concern is that this clause is very. Gives the Home Office very broad powers to introduce the change of entitlements to refugees. The Corporate Action Framework, which was set out in the Restoring Order and Control. statement last year, indicates that there's an intention to reduce. entitlements for refugees.
So our concern is that the core protection framework would have a detrimental impact on refugee.
So our concern is that the core protection framework would have a detrimental impact on refugee.
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
is the best support network that there can be. And our experience is that is that refugees have a much better integration outcome when they have their families with them. And the reason that we say that is that, for example, we've had suspension of refugee family reunions since September last year. So we've had a whole year where we've had many clients who haven't been able to reunite with their families or apply for that. And we've, we've, we've seen that this has really impacted their ability to focus on accessing language and employment because they're deeply concerned about their family, which is often a spouse and young children in places of, of danger.
And we would also be concerned that that would then cause those. families to resort to smugglers to reunite when they don't see that there's another option. We, we feel that the. So the proposal is that people would then get family reunion. On transitioning to a work and study pathway. We have questions around the eligibility. criteria for that , and the support there will be for refugees to be able to access those work and study.
And we would also be concerned that that would then cause those. families to resort to smugglers to reunite when they don't see that there's another option. We, we feel that the. So the proposal is that people would then get family reunion. On transitioning to a work and study pathway. We have questions around the eligibility. criteria for that , and the support there will be for refugees to be able to access those work and study.
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
In local government. Hello everyone. I'm Professor Sarah Singer. I'm a professor of refugee law at the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London. I run our master's programme in refugee protection and forced migration studies, and I'm also joint editor in chief of the International Journal of Refugee Law,
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Courts and Enforcement Act of. 2007 was a constitutional device set up by. Parliament to have a separation of powers. But what we see. instead is a system where the Home. Secretary is going to appoint the chair of, of, of this new. authority will also appoint the CEO or the chief executive officer, rather of this new authority. And that person in turn will appoint the adjudicators.
And that does give some rise to for concern. whether their scope to challenge that is something we're very worried about. I mean, the whole. idea of the. tribunal system is that we have highly trained. judges with lots of. experience presiding over it. It's not clear. We don't know. There may not be a problem because we don't know where the. adjudicators are going to come from.
Our major concern at the moment will be their independence. But I just want to add that the whole point of this is predicated on there being a backlog in the system, and it's not clear that just by. changing from one system to the other is really going to. address this backlog. We saw that the Home Office brought in large numbers of people to try and fast track immigration decisions, and what we saw with those.
decisions was a number of.
And that does give some rise to for concern. whether their scope to challenge that is something we're very worried about. I mean, the whole. idea of the. tribunal system is that we have highly trained. judges with lots of. experience presiding over it. It's not clear. We don't know. There may not be a problem because we don't know where the. adjudicators are going to come from.
Our major concern at the moment will be their independence. But I just want to add that the whole point of this is predicated on there being a backlog in the system, and it's not clear that just by. changing from one system to the other is really going to. address this backlog. We saw that the Home Office brought in large numbers of people to try and fast track immigration decisions, and what we saw with those.
decisions was a number of.
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:56
15:57
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Going into the appellate system that shouldn't be there in the first place. And the evidence of this is that the courts are now awarding or the tribunals rather, are now awarding costs against the Home Office. And we've had two very. recently where it was very clear that the Home Office failed to follow directions. Those were directions around the need to review the whole case or assess the evidence before it, and it just failed to do that.
So if you are going to replace one system with another, but you still have very, very poor decision making in the first instance, you're not really going to clear the backlog just very.
So if you are going to replace one system with another, but you still have very, very poor decision making in the first instance, you're not really going to clear the backlog just very.
15:58
15:58
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
because I know I could go on forever. So just very recently, I accidentally sat in on the wrong hearing at a tribunal. I was only meant to be an observer. A younger member of my team was doing a hearing, and I thought I'd like to observe it, and I was sent the wrong link by the tribunal. And it took me about half an hour before I suddenly realised that I was on the wrong link.
I thought it was just that that matter was being heard. first and mine was going to follow. And so I sat through half an hour. It was a man from Iraq.
I thought it was just that that matter was being heard. first and mine was going to follow. And so I sat through half an hour. It was a man from Iraq.
15:59
15:59
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
The interpreter didn't really. understand him, and it was a waste of time. It took about. 30 minutes for the immigration judge to say, we have to abandon this. And where that brings me to is that the other cause for the backlog is the large numbers of people who are not represented. And that's partly because of the system, the legal aid problems in the legal aid system. And I know we've recently had an increase, but if we want to get rid of the backlog, we're going to have to address the large numbers of people coming into the system with no.
representation at all because they can't find a lawyer. Most legal aid lawyers can't make this work on the rates, so they're giving up. My own practice is about to, or we're currently. considering giving up legal aid work, and we're one of the few that's still around doing it. And so you're going to have people coming into the tribunal system requiring.
representation at all because they can't find a lawyer. Most legal aid lawyers can't make this work on the rates, so they're giving up. My own practice is about to, or we're currently. considering giving up legal aid work, and we're one of the few that's still around doing it. And so you're going to have people coming into the tribunal system requiring.
16:00
16:01
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And then the tribunal system having to deal with that and then having to deal with very, very poor decision making coming from the Home Office. And and I think for me, that's my biggest I mean, I have other concerns about the bill, but I think that's my biggest concern. And that's the thing that I'm exercise at the moment into looking at. Is there . A
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
materially and effectively change that situation? We are worried about the provisions in the bill around article eight, particularly as they relate to. children and the best interests of the children. The redefinition of a family at a time when we're, you know. recognising that families come in all different types and, you know, colours. And I don't mean colours in terms of race, that's probably not the best word.
But you know, fam, there isn't a. straightforward definition of a family. And what this bill
But you know, fam, there isn't a. straightforward definition of a family. And what this bill
16:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And what this bill seeks to do is almost narrow that down. You know who lives in the House and who doesn't. And then that's from the sort of. language we're getting from the Home Office who've been trying to. describe what they mean, because we don't know yet. I mean, all we've got is a. template of an idea, but we have a section five best interests of the child, which most of us base our work on, and that.
16:03
16:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Using article eight to remain. together to remain in the country. And I saw in the impact assessment that accompanies this bill that less than. 12,000 families were likely to be refused. So we're really going for such a. draconian measure in order to deal with a very small number of people. It almost reminds me of Rwanda again. You know, we were almost ready to spend or we did spend.
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
would have been very, very small numbers. And I, I can't quite. understand why we are targeting families. A lot of those. families are actually the third and fourth. generation of people who were settled here, brought their children, because we have this concept in the Windrush and it's in South Asian families and West African families. This concept of leaving children behind. They came when they were over the age of 18, and large numbers of their.
children are the ones who are caught up in this system and using article eight to remain. And these are the sorts of people we'll be. We'll be. targeting people who are. This is their home. They're settled here and the numbers are small. It's not .
children are the ones who are caught up in this system and using article eight to remain. And these are the sorts of people we'll be. We'll be. targeting people who are. This is their home. They're settled here and the numbers are small. It's not .
16:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Clear to me why we need to be doing this. Mr. Turnbull, thank you very much. Thank you both for joining us. I just wanted to refer back, if I may, to the example that you gave, where of the online case that you joined by mistake, where obviously something had got to a judge that was a result of really poor decision making? Doesn't that make the case for the ieea a in that actually it was a bit of a waste of a judge's time to have gone through that process and actually having a quicker appeals.
process would that would have been able to see that quickly and then deal with it much more effectively. And building on that point. You know, we've seen a 21% increase in the amount of investment and the amount of judges dealing with tribunal appeals. Yet the rate of appeals and the waiting time is still going up. Surely you must admit that there's there's an issue here that with the backlog, the time it takes,
process would that would have been able to see that quickly and then deal with it much more effectively. And building on that point. You know, we've seen a 21% increase in the amount of investment and the amount of judges dealing with tribunal appeals. Yet the rate of appeals and the waiting time is still going up. Surely you must admit that there's there's an issue here that with the backlog, the time it takes,
16:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And the small pool of people that we have to to draw from, I think I might have confused the point. There are two separate things. The idea of this man from Iraq, the point I was making about him was the lack of . Representation. And it's that lack of. representation of people coming. unprepared to do their appeals and that.
16:08
16:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, judges time to be wasted. The entire tribunal is time to be wasted. And that goes out the system and it comes back in, it comes, it comes back in in terms of the poor decision making, that's a separate thing. I don't know. whether the refusal of that man that brought him into the appellate system was a good decision or not. We didn't get round to that bit of it.
But what we do see. considerable poor decision making. I work quite a lot with the Windrush.
But what we do see. considerable poor decision making. I work quite a lot with the Windrush.
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
know, we keep seeing in the news, you know, the waiting for the Windrush generation to die. And I don't think that's true at all. I don't I don't think the Home Office is that sinister. But but we are seeing very straightforward cases taking 2 or 3 years to come to a conclusion. And the whole reason for that is because of the poor decision making. You know, you get cases where the first decision is a zero, and then it goes up to six figures after.
2 or 3 reviews. And we're dealing with an elderly cohort. And these reviews go on for years and. retraumatize the victims. So it's the same sort of thing that I see across my . Practice. Poor decision making on a number of things. And that. includes human rights applications. It also.
2 or 3 reviews. And we're dealing with an elderly cohort. And these reviews go on for years and. retraumatize the victims. So it's the same sort of thing that I see across my . Practice. Poor decision making on a number of things. And that. includes human rights applications. It also.
16:10
16:10
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:12
16:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The Home Office is meant to review the decision. And that's why we're getting costs in these cases, which is almost unheard of. You know, I've been doing this work as a lawyer, as I said, well, two years of a trainee, so 18 years as a lawyer. And I've never seen anything like it, that we are getting costs in these cases because of the poor decision making at the Home Office. Even when there is a built in review.
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:14
16:14
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
16:15
16:15
16:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
understand what some of this novel and peculiar wording actually means. Well, I have to say, I have questions about the drafting of the bill in its entirety. So in my opinion, I don't think that this committee can appropriately scrutinise this bill , because there's a significant lack of. detail of so many of the provisions, in addition to very odd drafting. It's with due respect. It's a lot of it is back of the envelope type stuff, which is clearly been rushed through the legislative drafting process.
So, for.
So, for.
16:16
16:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I heard the committee questioning in the previous panel the clause on the introduction of a core protection status. What that clause actually does isn't set out the eligibility or the content of what a core protection status is. What that clause does is give the Secretary of State significant. powers to make regulations in respect of what eligibility for a protection status would be, and what the content of that status would be.
Now.
Now.
16:17
16:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
In the provision on asylum support, we don't have any. details about the actual operation or functioning of that system. It's giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations in respect of this of this scheme in relation to the. Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. We don't have the rules of procedure to scrutinise, to be able to actually. ascertain whether there will be due process, due process appropriately followed and and fairness.
So I would say that, yes, I agree with you that there are strange. inconsistencies in the drafting, but additionally, I think that the whole content of the bill is, is quite . Lacking
So I would say that, yes, I agree with you that there are strange. inconsistencies in the drafting, but additionally, I think that the whole content of the bill is, is quite . Lacking
16:18
16:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Paul Foster. Thank you chair. Good afternoon. You've you've both been heavily critical of the Home Office quite vocally, actually, more than any other of the witnesses that we've. received today. And one would argue you could argue that, you know, some of population in the United Kingdom, because this is an issue that we have. There's a lot of political pressure in the country, is not happy with the current system and with what's happening with it, particularly legal migration.
And some would say that perhaps the lawyers are partly responsible for that as well. But that's a separate debate. You've also clearly said that the you don't believe that the comment you've acknowledged that there is a huge backlog in the appeals process. So. And that a lot of the time that's the Home Office's fault. So what the government are trying to do is propose an. alternative process for that which you're also criticising.
So my question to you is what would you what would you advise doing? Because we can't continue with the status quo. So what would you both advise doing which would speed up the.
And some would say that perhaps the lawyers are partly responsible for that as well. But that's a separate debate. You've also clearly said that the you don't believe that the comment you've acknowledged that there is a huge backlog in the appeals process. So. And that a lot of the time that's the Home Office's fault. So what the government are trying to do is propose an. alternative process for that which you're also criticising.
So my question to you is what would you what would you advise doing? Because we can't continue with the status quo. So what would you both advise doing which would speed up the.
16:21
16:21
16:21
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
the. individuals that are seeking asylum as well? Yeah, well, definitely there's a lot of very much more financially effective ways that the backlog can be addressed. So as was already intimated, a lot of the tribunal, well, a lot of the current tribunal backlog is caused by the fact that initial decision making was paused for a significant amount of time when the Rwanda scheme was being pursued. And then once that was opened, there was a huge investment in having a large number of initial decisions made on a very quick basis, right.
That has that was roundly. criticised on a number of counts to leading to, you know, speed over over quality. And we have a number of very poor quality decisions that have then gone through to the appeals system, leading to the backlog at the initial tribunal system. So ways that can be addressed is by not having. inconsistencies in the initial in the rate of initial decision making in the first place.
That has that was roundly. criticised on a number of counts to leading to, you know, speed over over quality. And we have a number of very poor quality decisions that have then gone through to the appeals system, leading to the backlog at the initial tribunal system. So ways that can be addressed is by not having. inconsistencies in the initial in the rate of initial decision making in the first place.
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Legal aid provision for those who are entitled to it so that they are not wasting time in the tribunal system and ensuring that the Home Office does. appropriately use its review mechanism. Because at the moment, I mean, I'm sure my colleague can speak to this at much more length than I can, but initial rejection decisions tend to include a large number of sort of copy and paste grounds of refusal. And what happens when it gets to tribunal is that the decision maker has to go through every single one of those grounds, which is incredibly lengthy.
And if a Home Office official just reviewed that in advance and. conceded those grounds, which were not.
And if a Home Office official just reviewed that in advance and. conceded those grounds, which were not.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Then it would. certainly speed up the the decision making process within the tribunal system itself, as I've already intimated as well. If there really is concern that there's not enough sitting judges in the first tier tribunal, there is potential. There is the provision that the eligibility. criteria can be expanded within the initial system, and surely that would be a much more effective and speedy way to address the backlog than.
creating a whole new. entire body and system with its own mechanisms and staffing requirements? Really. Although the stated intention of creating this new body is to address the asylum backlog in.
creating a whole new. entire body and system with its own mechanisms and staffing requirements? Really. Although the stated intention of creating this new body is to address the asylum backlog in.
16:25
16:25
16:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
operation of this, of the of the tribunal system than she currently has. And can I just add that, you know, in defence of lawyers, lawyers are really helping the vast majority of lawyers, and we see the stories every now and again, don't we, of, you know, some a dodgy practitioner here and there, but in the main lawyers are helping. I have a small team of of immigration and asylum lawyers. We do about 20 appeals a year, I think.
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It's so frustrating that we see them get refused by the Home Office when they ought not to be. There's then that that sort of period of scrutiny called the review, and they get rejected there again, and then they spend another year to two in the asylum. system before. ultimately their appeals are allowed. And I think lawyers are actually helping to try to work with the Home Office. And there are all sorts I mean, there's the Immigration Law Practitioners Association that works with the Home Office.
There are Windrush groups that work with the Home Office. I've been part of it. You know, I worked with former Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Priti Patel on trying to get things right. I think it is wrong to blame lawyers. We are doing our job, a job we train for many years to do and we're trying to help the system. But it is a fact that poor decision. making and then structural problems around legal aid, so that we don't therefore have enough practitioners and enough high quality.
There are Windrush groups that work with the Home Office. I've been part of it. You know, I worked with former Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Priti Patel on trying to get things right. I think it is wrong to blame lawyers. We are doing our job, a job we train for many years to do and we're trying to help the system. But it is a fact that poor decision. making and then structural problems around legal aid, so that we don't therefore have enough practitioners and enough high quality.
16:28
16:28
16:28
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
explaining that the I understood, yeah, I understood, I was just defending lawyers. Would you both I'm sorry. Would you both concede, though, that the there is an issue at the hallmark? There is an issue. These these claims aren't being dealt with quick enough. There's a number of appeals. And it's only right and proper that the government . Try and
16:29
16:29
16:29
16:30
16:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
know, organisations representing children representing refugees, no end of evidence of people who are saying it's not going to achieve that. Now, I do. accept that, you know, there is an issue because even if the Home Office was to get every single. application right, and that's never going to be possible. Nobody gets everything right. It's still large numbers of people. But I do think that that is it's large numbers of people in a system that isn't designed.
It needs to be better designed. The Home Office probably needs more resources. I know when I sat on the Windrush Lessons Learned Independent Advisory group, one of the things that always came out. Then you're having evidence from Daniel Hobbs later. One of the things that came out there was that the Home Office is a.
It needs to be better designed. The Home Office probably needs more resources. I know when I sat on the Windrush Lessons Learned Independent Advisory group, one of the things that always came out. Then you're having evidence from Daniel Hobbs later. One of the things that came out there was that the Home Office is a.
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:32
16:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Most of the asylum seekers. And one of the speakers earlier on, one of the witnesses, sorry, earlier on, did talk about. 180 million being people being displaced. But we have the data. I don't need to keep repeating it. But, you know, we see very, very poor. countries having the burden of asylum seekers and refugees.
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:33
16:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, a small Caribbean island next door to an island where my parents was from, which has a population of just over a million, has. 200,000 refugees in it. We really don't get that many people coming here, either through legal routes or coming in the small boats. And and because those numbers are static and in in fact, they're actually declining. What we need to do is properly. resource the Home Office with either more skilled or highly skilled people.
And I'm not having a go at the people who are there. But something is very wrong there, which is what's causing the major problems that . We're
And I'm not having a go at the people who are there. But something is very wrong there, which is what's causing the major problems that . We're
16:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
seeing at the higher levels, the appellate courts and so forth. And I would add, you know, even aside from questions surrounding the numbers of arrivals that we have, I just consider that setting up an entirely new body would be a huge waste of public resources. If you look at the Home Office's own impact assessment for this bill, they say the set up of the IAH would require the recruitment and or redeployment of an executive board. adjudicators and supporting staff.
This represents a significant operational. undertaking and is expected to incur substantial. recruitment and onboarding costs. They then. They then state that the recruitment will be challenging and may not be.
This represents a significant operational. undertaking and is expected to incur substantial. recruitment and onboarding costs. They then. They then state that the recruitment will be challenging and may not be.
16:36
16:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Increasing the likelihood of operational. pressure and higher than expected costs. And then there is the. additional factor of transitioning. The first tier tribunal judges over to this new board and or the financial costs of the. obligations that are owed to judges if they if they are, if they are retired. So I think it's a huge waste of public resources to set up an entirely new board, and the resources would be much better spent.
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
16:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Examples, offers more to the committee if we wish to get them from them. And I think we should. And obviously, as an MP, I see quite a lot of these decisions myself in person. I wanted to ask what more can be done to improve this, because I know the Audit Office has looked at it. One thing I've noticed in my constituency is some of my migrant groups have tried to get migrants.
16:38
16:38
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Successful asylum seekers, to give evidence on the process, but they're scared to do that because they worry about their next visa decision. Is there more that we can do to bring people into actually improving the process and the accessibility of the process? As I understand it, the first decision is when people are. essentially without lawyer. representation usually. So this is where these . Kinds of
16:39
16:39
16:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Claim asylum, and they have a screening interview, and then there's a longer, more elaborate interview, a substantive interview. And then lawyers tend to get involved putting together all the putting together all the evidence that's available to support the claim. So sorry, this is an awful fly. I know it's kind of made me lose my, my, my thoughts. The other day I was here. It was a mouse that was a fly going on in this building.
But I think it's about staff. It's about training. I think so, so very. rudimentary errors that you see, you know, the wrong country, the wrong gender, the wrong names of people. And that's partly to do with what Professor Singer picked up on, you know, just the cut and paste approach. Very often it's a cut and paste, you know, I almost know the decisions off by heart because you see the same.
But I think it's about staff. It's about training. I think so, so very. rudimentary errors that you see, you know, the wrong country, the wrong gender, the wrong names of people. And that's partly to do with what Professor Singer picked up on, you know, just the cut and paste approach. Very often it's a cut and paste, you know, I almost know the decisions off by heart because you see the same.
16:41
16:41
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The same when you've been doing it for as long as I have. You kind of know what you're going to get. But I do think. Without casting any. aspersions on people who are probably working very, very hard in their jobs, probably not for the best of pay, but I suppose there are some other perks. It's a career and, you know, a pension at the end of it and all that sort of thing.
But it is still it's it's.
But it is still it's it's.
16:42
16:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
You know, I understand that they have targets. I know somebody in criminal casework department told me they even had a star sheet on the wall. Each time they got someone deported, they got a little star. So I don't know what sort of place that is, but I do think better training, it needs more people. So it needs. expansion and it needs more better training, because I don't think the numbers of people are going to.
16:43
16:43
16:43
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
review, according to Sara, simply doesn't happen, essentially. But I mean, it doesn't it doesn't I don't know if that's a target in the Home Office. I don't know how the internal. operations work, but it seems to me that the Home Office want everything to go through the tribunal. So they refuse almost everything that they can, and then it goes through the tribunal. And there's the review mechanism, which they ignore even when they are directed to do things like review the evidence or review the decision, they don't do it.
And then. even when and this is in deport cases mainly, and I suppose, you know, deport cases are difficult in terms of how they play out in the public and so forth. But even when you win a case in the. tribunal that's been allowed on very, very strong grounds, on very strong evidence, they appeal again to the upper tribunal. And sometimes these things are in the system for 3 or 4 years. So it does need a root and branch .
Change, I
And then. even when and this is in deport cases mainly, and I suppose, you know, deport cases are difficult in terms of how they play out in the public and so forth. But even when you win a case in the. tribunal that's been allowed on very, very strong grounds, on very strong evidence, they appeal again to the upper tribunal. And sometimes these things are in the system for 3 or 4 years. So it does need a root and branch .
Change, I
16:46
16:46
16:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
question, chair, then all people waiting. No. It's okay. Okay. Thank you. And then Jackie, you also raised something that that I like because it is Green Party policy that I should be bringing that up here, which is breaking up the Home Office. Now, obviously, the the discussions we've heard and the evidence we've heard from other people is that the huge amount of work it is to set up the new tribunal service, is it less would it be easier to just start again with the Home Office and create a new branch of it that does immigration versus police and.
16:47
16:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or is that just for the future? Maybe for the future? Because I totally accept Professor Singer's point, which, you know, one of the issues about the new authority and I keep getting its name wrong because it's changed its name actually three times, hasn't it? It is that it's going to be. expensive and unwieldy and for much less money. We could probably make the current system work. So I, and I know that, you know, it's difficult times for the country in terms of budgets and so forth.
So I don't necessarily want to propose something that's going to be very expensive. But I think long term, the bit of the Home Office that makes these sorts of.
So I don't necessarily want to propose something that's going to be very expensive. But I think long term, the bit of the Home Office that makes these sorts of.
16:48
16:48
16:48
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Doctor Zubair Ahmed. Good afternoon. It was just to pick up on the point around those invoking article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights. You said it was small numbers, but I understand the number is around. 77,000 that end up caught in the crosshairs. So I'm just wondering, from your experience and.
16:49
16:49
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
What is it you think? What guidance do judges need? If a change in the law is what is not necessary? From your perspective on article eight and more widely, where do you believe from your perspective, the country is because the prerequisite of a functional asylum system needs to command the confidence of the vast majority of the public? And in relation to article eight in particular, do . You think
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
16:50
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
refused under this new system. It's I think it's 11,000 711,700. And the Home Office Impact Assessment estimates that. 55% of those will, in any case, remain in the UK because it's not possible to remove them back to their home country due to legal or logistical challenges. So it's it's anticipated to have quite minimal impact in practice. So it's quite a significant legislative change to make for quite a limited impact.
Overall, most of the public attention is focused on the issue of foreign criminals, for.
Overall, most of the public attention is focused on the issue of foreign criminals, for.
16:52
16:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And the home, the House of Commons library briefing for this bill indicates that at present, it's only. 3% of foreign criminal appeals that are allowed on human rights basis, article eight or otherwise. So again, the impact is quite minimal. The the most significant impact the changes to article eight are going to have is on children and families. We're going to see more more children without their parents. We're going to see more separated families.
And I think in quite. unconscionable ways, that will actually be quite upsetting for the public. For me, I mean, firstly, setting out an. interpretation of article eight in domestic legislation doesn't change the meaning of article eight as a matter of international law. It doesn't change what the UK's obligations are. So either it's in line with the UK's obligations, in which case the legislation is not necessary because the courts are. already doing article eight.
determinations themselves and doing their own balancing exercise on the basis of the existing legislation that we have, or they're more restrictive than the UK's current.
And I think in quite. unconscionable ways, that will actually be quite upsetting for the public. For me, I mean, firstly, setting out an. interpretation of article eight in domestic legislation doesn't change the meaning of article eight as a matter of international law. It doesn't change what the UK's obligations are. So either it's in line with the UK's obligations, in which case the legislation is not necessary because the courts are. already doing article eight.
determinations themselves and doing their own balancing exercise on the basis of the existing legislation that we have, or they're more restrictive than the UK's current.
16:53
16:53
16:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Convention on Human Rights and the convention on the rights of the child. Yeah, no, I agree with that. I mean, so I think you're aware that the figures we were talking about in terms of or that I was talking about rather in terms of the small numbers, weren't the overall 77,000. I mean, what we think of. 77,000 is another matter. Some of us might say that even that's not a huge number of people, especially when we look at how long some of those families have been settled in the UK, and the reasons why some of them are still in the immigration system, when their parents and.
grandparents may well have been settled. But I think it is it is this point about redefining what is a family and breaking families up that . concerns me more than anything.
grandparents may well have been settled. But I think it is it is this point about redefining what is a family and breaking families up that . concerns me more than anything.
16:55
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Thank you, Ben Goldsboro. Thank you very much, chair. What are the issues I think that everyone will agree about is that we have to have a confidence based immigration and asylum system. We have to have the public's full support of it to make sure that it can continue going forward. At the same time, we need a fair system, a system that supports those that are going through the actual application system or the appellant system, so they feel like they're getting their fair day in court.
At the same time, however, the issues are both of you have raised is obviously to do with backlogs that we've seen that have raised under the Rwanda scheme and other schemes that have caused that issue going forward. One of the concerns that many people have, especially South Norfolk. constituents of mine, for example, will be that the courts simply don't have the ability to keep up with the amount of casework that's coming to them, and that's. because we have a system which has not enough clarity, and especially on article eight, that is an issue as well.
And this bill obviously has a goal and ambition to actually give clarity to the .
At the same time, however, the issues are both of you have raised is obviously to do with backlogs that we've seen that have raised under the Rwanda scheme and other schemes that have caused that issue going forward. One of the concerns that many people have, especially South Norfolk. constituents of mine, for example, will be that the courts simply don't have the ability to keep up with the amount of casework that's coming to them, and that's. because we have a system which has not enough clarity, and especially on article eight, that is an issue as well.
And this bill obviously has a goal and ambition to actually give clarity to the .
16:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Courts on that issue. Isn't that something to be welcomed? Possibly. But you're conflating some issues. So if we run the numbers for Rwanda are very tiny in terms. But most of the people who are carded for Rwanda have actually been granted asylum. They're not in the backlog at all. But article eight isn't really going to affect those sorts of people. It's really going to affect children and.
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:59
16:59
16:59
16:59
16:59
16:59
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
That's happened , usually because parents have left children behind and brought them to the UK over the age of 18. So they've had no status. And then they've had children who've had no status. And in my. practice and in lots of people, I in my jurisdiction who I'm networked in with in our practice. Those are the sorts of. cases that we use article eight for and that we see article eight being successful for.
And I don't think that anybody . Would
And I don't think that anybody . Would
17:00
17:00
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
see those sorts of families being removed from the UK. Do you not believe there needs to be any. clarity actually introduced within article eight? As in, we have seen a number of stories, a number of cases where it shouldn't be applied, but obviously, because there is no legal structure that is set out in. clarity from Parliament to the.
17:00
17:00
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
17:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
full confidence of the public because they know they're being used for the right reason. I think the bill doesn't do that, though. That's if that's what you want to see happen. The bill isn't going to do that. And what we do have instead is this sort of popular. culture mainly perpetuated through the about article eight. So every now and again you get a story about somebody and their cat or somebody who didn't like chicken nuggets in Albania or something like that.
And one, those are very minor cases. And two, they're never the whole story. You know, that's usually just one. feature of a number of grounds that someone's been granted leave to remain under article eight. But that's the one that the journalists who were sat in the back of the court decides to write about. So we don't, you know, but but where I think there is an issue is because that's happening, the public have a.
conception about or a concept about article eight. They don't understand it. And it's our . Job to
And one, those are very minor cases. And two, they're never the whole story. You know, that's usually just one. feature of a number of grounds that someone's been granted leave to remain under article eight. But that's the one that the journalists who were sat in the back of the court decides to write about. So we don't, you know, but but where I think there is an issue is because that's happening, the public have a.
conception about or a concept about article eight. They don't understand it. And it's our . Job to
17:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
try and educate them. And I think it's the job of. parliamentarians to do that, too. And we already have quite a detailed domestic legislative framework around article eight that was introduced in the 2014 Immigration Act. I believe it's very detailed, sets out in statute what different factors the court should take into account. This adds further. complexity to that and a more.
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:04
17:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
further questions? Mr.. Yeah, because we had we had some evidence on article eight. We had some evidence from the KC this morning whose name I can't recall. And but they were saying that they don't think that the that the. Strasbourg has indicated that they don't think that the UK is applying article eight correctly and that we're applying it to liberally. Is that wasn't his language that I'm just using that language.
But they think where the UK itself, our courts have gone too far with this application of article eight and. And so you can see how confusing this whole issue is. And so would you would you agree that there is great confusion around its application? And actually Strasbourg themselves have.
But they think where the UK itself, our courts have gone too far with this application of article eight and. And so you can see how confusing this whole issue is. And so would you would you agree that there is great confusion around its application? And actually Strasbourg themselves have.
17:05
17:05
17:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And if you look at the if you look at the this morning in committee and if you look at the most recent decisions out of the Court of Appeal, like the I. A decision that came out a few months ago, for example. It's a very restrictive interpretation of article eight that was being applied to deny the right to family life, to those to those appellants. So I don't see a. particularly liberal approach to article eight being taken by the courts.
As I mentioned, we already have a domestic framework in place, if that is.
As I mentioned, we already have a domestic framework in place, if that is.
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:07
17:07
17:07
17:07
17:07
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
No I don't think it's right. Thank you. Thank you chair. Just very briefly you focused a great deal on Home Office decision making as being the primary. reason why the process takes a long time. And there are a number of appeals. But isn't the. reality that appeal is the default. Virtually all refusals are appealed. It's nothing to do with the decision making, and as long as that's going .
To be the
To be the
17:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
case, we have to find a way to speed up the system. What I'm referring to, sorry, what I am referring to are those decisions that are badly made that end up in the appellate system. Those are the ones that I see and that go on after 2 or 3 years to be allowed, and the person gets to remain in the UK and those are not. We have seen some initiatives where the Home Office has . People coming from particular.
countries have been granted asylum, and there's been a whole, you know, whether whether that's just due process or not. But generally speaking, the. appeals that we see , and that's my practice and my practice is limited. I'm not trying to sit here and extrapolate across the.
countries have been granted asylum, and there's been a whole, you know, whether whether that's just due process or not. But generally speaking, the. appeals that we see , and that's my practice and my practice is limited. I'm not trying to sit here and extrapolate across the.
17:09
17:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
But in my. practice of the appeals that I do, I would say the vast majority, if not nearly all of them perhaps could have had a different. decision in the first instance and didn't need to go into the system. Now, of course, if people's lives are. dependent on them fleeing. persecution or. maintaining their family ties in the UK and they get a negative decision, of course they are going to .
Appeal
Appeal
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Of asylum appeals could be effectively wiped out if the initial decision was better made. The fact that there are bad initial decisions by the Home Office is a fact. If you look at the National Audit Office Review of Home Office decision making or the Home Office's own assessment of the quality of its.
17:12
17:12
17:12
17:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Won't go on to appeal. So there'll be less appeals, right. But the question is there's going to be appeals anyway. There's always going to be appeals. So we want to have the most efficient and effective system that we can, while making sure that it is fair and follows due process standards that have to be applied when you're making very serious decisions, such as removing people potentially to somewhere where they'll be at risk of very serious harm or their life will be threatened.
You need to have due process in that place. So what's the best way we can do that? Is it by. establishing an entirely new body that's going to need to be starved.
You need to have due process in that place. So what's the best way we can do that? Is it by. establishing an entirely new body that's going to need to be starved.
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:15
17:15
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
that's acceptable to the chair. As I mentioned, there are provisions in this bill relating to a new core protection status and also around asylum support, and I don't feel that the committee can actually scrutinise that without having the. regulations that the Secretary of State plans to adopt before it. So my recommendation is that the Secretary of State should be forced to publish those.
17:16
17:16
17:17
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:19
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Asking companies to find, fix and prevent modern slavery. We also benchmark the top. 100 UK listed companies. For all intents and purposes, the FTSE. 100 and the top 100 companies. globally on what they do to address modern slavery. There's there's. undeniably a strong moral case for tackling modern slavery. But beyond the moral case, businesses that fail to undertake.
sufficient human rights due. diligence open themselves up to. operational supply chain.
sufficient human rights due. diligence open themselves up to. operational supply chain.
17:20
17:20
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Legal and financial risks. And as long term investors, we're concerned that these can. compound over the long term and can affect the value of the businesses we invest in. So that's why we address modern slavery in our work, our stewardship work. And I think I'm here to give evidence on the . Strengthening of
17:21
17:21
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:22
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
But it doesn't there's a difference between reporting and performance. And I think there's still an opportunity for companies just to be taking a tick box approach, complying with the letter of the the bill and the clauses rather than actually taking action. So I think there is there is an opportunity for companies still to be not doing the human rights due.
17:22
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And companies are not actually complying with it. And in our benchmarking work, we've. identified some of the largest companies in the world. companies that have exposure to modern slavery. They're operating in high risk geographies. They have supply chains that reach into high risk, high risk geographies. And they're in sectors that we deem high risk who are not currently complying with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act.
So we do think that there's there's a risk at the.
So we do think that there's there's a risk at the.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We will now hear from Neil Barkow, director of Civil Family Tribunals and Administration of Justice at the Ministry of Justice. Daniel Fleury, operations director for His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, and Alison Hewitt, director of migration, borders and. international projects and programmes at the Home Office. We have until. 430 for this panel. So good. The witnesses please . Briefly
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
And they've improved their listing practices too. We've sought to grow the judicial workforce as quickly as possible. And since last year, we've seen a net increase of about. 21% in the number of judges, up to just over 300 now, with. 65 fee paid 25 salary judges starting earlier this year, more recruitment in train. And whilst we've had that.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
In a relevant field. And traditionally, if you're coming in as a salary judge, you need to have had previous judicial. experience to. And taking on a salary role means you give up your practice. So on immigration and asylum matters, we have struggled to go as further and as fast as as we would like. And the process is not quick. It takes. 12 to 18 months to recruit judges.
So I think the proposition with the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority is that if you're able to recruit trained adjudicators from a broader range of.
So I think the proposition with the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority is that if you're able to recruit trained adjudicators from a broader range of.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Do you have any views on that as a as a ministry that might be better addressed to ministers? But as a civil servant, I do not think this is a waste of of public money. I think it is vitally important that we. address the cases that are in the system, and we look at all ways about how we can do that properly whilst retaining quality. And that's what we're, I think, trying to do here and manage that.
process as well as possible. But with.
process as well as possible. But with.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Cases, no, sorry. 150 cases, thousand cases in the system. It is taking, you know, much longer than anyone would like for those cases to be disposed. So something that increases capacity in this way, if we can protect the quality, has to be a good thing. And it's about being flexible as well. And I think that's . What the new
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Well, well, it's an objective assessment. Well, it's it's if done well, it can absolutely improve. So if you can ensure that the quality there is, if you can ensure that it's staffed up properly, that you have the right levels of independence, as is set out in the bill, I think it would be a improvement on the current system. I recognise what's underlying your question around. We've had a lot of immigration and asylum bills and and that changing of perspective is difficult for people in the system.
undoubtedly is. But I think there are very sensible things in this bill that seek to improve the current situation. And I think one of the things as. departments and the PAC has spoken on this and the Nao has, is around how departments come together and cooperate more effectively in that in this space. And looking at the whole system, I think that's what this bill is about. It's about trying to look at the whole system as as one and say, an official level.
We're doing that much more .
undoubtedly is. But I think there are very sensible things in this bill that seek to improve the current situation. And I think one of the things as. departments and the PAC has spoken on this and the Nao has, is around how departments come together and cooperate more effectively in that in this space. And looking at the whole system, I think that's what this bill is about. It's about trying to look at the whole system as as one and say, an official level.
We're doing that much more .
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you Doctor Zubair Ahmed. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, and I must declare I was once involved as a in a first tier tribunal and then obviously, as parliamentarians were heavily involved on behalf of constituents. sometimes in these matters, the case I was involved in, you could see from space that there was going to be only one one decision, and yet it took a long time to get there. And there seemed to be a over qualification of persons present, let's say in that case, from your perspective, when this is a is is being set up, how do you think it's going to .
Affect the
Affect the
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
The expectation is that the work of the first tier will decline. And I am the senior responsible officer for a programme which is managing essentially that that decommissioning process, that decline. So there's still, as Neil says, a pretty significant backlog, just under 150 000 appeals sitting in the system. So there's still quite a bit of work to be done. And the approach now in Hmcts and with the judiciary is simply business as usual until further notice.
And we are we are striving to sit more. We are striving to be more productive, we are striving for output and we are partially succeeding, I feel this year. But over time, in the years ahead, that work will. decline . And
And we are we are striving to sit more. We are striving to be more productive, we are striving for output and we are partially succeeding, I feel this year. But over time, in the years ahead, that work will. decline . And
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Perhaps that are in place to manage that complexity. It's principally a role for the judge to manage the. complexity in the case, obviously supported by legal. representatives in terms of the. complexity or supporting complexity that Hmcts can offer. You know, we have a . And this applies to all courts and. tribunals program of reasonable adjustments that we offer appellants.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Goldsborough. Thank you very much, chair. I think many people have heard the old adage of justice delayed is justice denied. And that is very obviously a situation we're currently in within the asylum process, with the backlog that has grown to the size that it has. So, in your view, do you believe that the Independent Immigration Appeals.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
In in that way, I don't know if a colleague wants to add anything more to that. So, I mean, clearly my responsibility here is to support the delivery as laid out in the bill. And there is the IIAA will have ownership of its own kind of procedural frameworks. Those will be set in, will be set in train. The work we are doing at the moment is we've got quite a large transformation programme and working very closely as my as my colleagues have.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
So at a certain point, the transformation programme will transfer its responsibility over to the chair at the set up point and. And from then on , the the the authority will establish its own detailed practices and processes. I can say a little bit more about the kind of the statutory roles that will that will kind of, you know, support that. So there is there is a lot in in the face of the bill that is sort of hard wired to protect the integrity of the overall system and to provide justice and, you know, and at .
And at
And at
17:23
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
pace to try and address some of the issues that that colleagues have already referred to as brilliant. And that leads me on to my next part of my question, actually, because as you say, it's all well and good having speed and having accuracy. But we also need to ensure that these systems are independent and have that sort of ability to manage. themselves without too much political interference. And I just wonder if you could expand a little bit. Obviously, schedule two of the bill goes into greater detail on that about how much.
independence is afforded to the chair and others and other appointed bodies. Could you expand for the committee on what you see . As the
independence is afforded to the chair and others and other appointed bodies. Could you expand for the committee on what you see . As the
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
The chief appeals officer, and the performance, the my mind's gone blank. The. So the fourth statutory role. I'll come back to it. But those those four roles. The chair will be. And the PSA will be. independently appointed through the public appointments process. And that is, as you you will be aware, the Committee will be aware. That is a standard. process in the. For the first. For the initial appointment, for the first appointment, that will be the Home Secretary who makes that.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
And then the chief. executive and the Chief Appeals Officer. They are important to note they are independent from the Crown, and that's placed in the. You know, that's in sort of hardwired into the bill. So they are employees of the double I, double A, and the chief. executive will be responsible and accountable for ensuring that the goal and the aim of the.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Which is to, you know, as we've said, increase efficiency whilst whilst protecting the integrity of the decisions that are being taken through the, you know, through the. adjudicators . , that he will be. accountable to the chair and. ultimately he will be required to present annual reports to Parliament. He will be required to. Or the double I, double A will have to go through an annual kind of review.
process undertaken by the ICB. So there are a number of. mechanisms throughout the bill . On the face
process undertaken by the ICB. So there are a number of. mechanisms throughout the bill . On the face
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
forgive me. My colleagues will be cringing as they listen to this. It's always the way it goes out your head when you need it most. There was an interesting point that you just raised there as well, in terms of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Would you say comparing and contrasting the system we live under right now, compared with the proposed system under this bill, will actually give Parliament more tools to scrutinise . How
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
system is being, as you say, in terms of reporting, I'm probably not best placed to comment from a from a delivery perspective, I can certainly say that in the face of the bill, as the SRO, I am you know, I am required to deliver a programme that will take effect to these changes and to these requirements. It's probably for our policy colleagues .
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
be once these changes have been implemented? It only takes about. 56 weeks for an appeal to clear the. system in the first tier tribunal at the moment, which is only going to worsen in the years ahead as more of these claims that have been sitting in the backlog for some time are concluded. It's even longer for appeals that 56 weeks is all appeals as to sort of where we think it could get to.
I don't think any of us could say yet unless the Home Office wants to offer something.
I don't think any of us could say yet unless the Home Office wants to offer something.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
would put forward to make that difference? I think in a sense, this bill mainly seems to be looking at the if you like, the stock rather than the flow, it's mainly looking at people who are already in the country rather than. I know the government has legislated previously on on the actual crossings. So I suppose the question is within the way the bill is structured at the.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
What would what would make the biggest difference to deter people starting the journey in the first place? And I think that's quite hard to say because there are lots of changes around make it more difficult to make claims, particularly under article eight. I think my main point is that I feel, as I've written before, that it's not just article eight, it's article three that really give asylum seekers an extremely high chance of staying in the country.
And while the government has chosen to to toughen somewhat the way that article eight will be treated, it's the bill is silent on article three, which I think is slightly. disappointing given that the Chisinau. Declaration back in May was talking about reforming both and was suggesting some areas where where potentially the courts, both domestically and in Strasbourg, could tighten things up.
And while the government has chosen to to toughen somewhat the way that article eight will be treated, it's the bill is silent on article three, which I think is slightly. disappointing given that the Chisinau. Declaration back in May was talking about reforming both and was suggesting some areas where where potentially the courts, both domestically and in Strasbourg, could tighten things up.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
think we'll just see everything coming back on different legal grounds? You've obviously got a combination of both the article eight. definitions and the sort of decision making body with the new with the new. appeals structure. I think actually the appeal structure could be very could be very helpful. I think there is a significant problem of public confidence in the immigration tribunals as they stand. So I think I welcome the.
government's the measures to phase that out, essentially. It's very hard to say how decision makers and people on appeal and so on are going to interpret. They they clearly is a toughening up here. So certainly on article eight, as I say, there's nothing really at the moment that does much on article three claims, which, as the Committee know, have been broadened by the courts over the last 20 years very, very widely into things like sort of whether there's an equivalent health system in the in the host country, as well as the receiving country and into areas that are really quite surprising for something that's then supposed to .
Be an
government's the measures to phase that out, essentially. It's very hard to say how decision makers and people on appeal and so on are going to interpret. They they clearly is a toughening up here. So certainly on article eight, as I say, there's nothing really at the moment that does much on article three claims, which, as the Committee know, have been broadened by the courts over the last 20 years very, very widely into things like sort of whether there's an equivalent health system in the in the host country, as well as the receiving country and into areas that are really quite surprising for something that's then supposed to .
Be an
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
public. confidence in the appeals process. I think so I don't the problem, I think with the immigration tribunals at the moment, the reporting about some of the. judgments in some cases have been pretty shocking. And the judicial judiciary hasn't really helped themselves, by the way, that most first tier judgments are not routinely available. So the only time you really hear about them is when they go up on appeal and are quite often turned down.
So it's the famous chicken nuggets case. The point about it was, was it wasn't actually upheld at appeal. It was turned down, but it gave people a taste of the sort of things that might be happening in the tribunals. And obviously, there are some cases that are recorded of tribunal judges coming from quite an activist.
So it's the famous chicken nuggets case. The point about it was, was it wasn't actually upheld at appeal. It was turned down, but it gave people a taste of the sort of things that might be happening in the tribunals. And obviously, there are some cases that are recorded of tribunal judges coming from quite an activist.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Which again, seems very odd. I think the public wouldn't expect that. So I think from that point of view, there's an opportunity to reset and have a clear rules about impartiality. I think also the there's considerable scope to speed things up, which will definitely be helpful. I think it certainly is the case that a lot of cases are lost because because of the time that it takes to get there, that people are able to build sort of.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Or indeed they will develop through article eight reasons on sort of forming relationships in the country. And the quicker a decision is made, the more likely it is it'll be. upheld rapidly at that first stage. So I think those are all positive. It's going to be a big process finding these people, you know, identifying them, training them, getting them ready. But .
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, opposition spokesperson Matt Vickers. Thank you Minister. The Independent Regulatory Policy Committee has rated the government's impact assessment for the bill as not fit for purpose. It says that little of the appraisal is. quantified and most impacts are uncertain. What measurable difference does the government expect the bill to make? How many additional removals will it deliver?
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
How much faster will cases finally be resolved? Thank you very much. Well, I mean, this bill is a really important part of the entire armoury that we have at the moment for dealing with illegal immigration and securing our borders in this country. We've tried to be clear all the way through this, that we have fundamental values that we uphold dearly in this country around decency, fairness.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
We've got to recognise the world is changing the system as we currently have. It is not designed to cope with a world that is as volatile as insecure, and the system that we have was not designed for people travelling through multiple safe countries before crossing the channel, particularly by boat. So we have to confront the situation of where our asylum system is at the moment, which is one of the most permissive ones compared to particularly other countries in Europe that currently acts, unfortunately, as a pull factor and does provide perverse incentive for people who have arrived illegally to switch to the asylum system once here.
And that's what this bill is part of trying to tackle as part of our wider process. As I said, this is part of our A number, a range of measures that we have in place to tackle the sorts of points that the shadow minister raises around things like removals. I just want to set it in its context, because we've had a lot of conversation today about whether this bill is going to be the silver bullet to stop the boats, and I think it's really important to see it in the broader context of all the other measures that we are bringing in.
So, as you know, we've established the Border Security Command, and that's been part of the reasons why, together with our one in, one out deal with France, that we've seen small boats down by over. 40% already this year. We've stopped. 38,000 crossings across the channel. We've got our asylum. claimants who are awaiting their initial decision. It's at its lowest since 2019. We're now down to fewer than half of the hotels that we've that asylum seekers are were placed in.
And we've seen. 80,000 removals since the last election, including. 11,000 foreign national offenders. So this is part, as I said, one part of the armoury that we want to to use. But the problems that we want to tackle are clear. 41% of asylum claims are from people who are already here and hold visas in from another form of entering the country. We have, as colleagues have heard, first tier tribunal where we have.
156,000 appeals.
And that's what this bill is part of trying to tackle as part of our wider process. As I said, this is part of our A number, a range of measures that we have in place to tackle the sorts of points that the shadow minister raises around things like removals. I just want to set it in its context, because we've had a lot of conversation today about whether this bill is going to be the silver bullet to stop the boats, and I think it's really important to see it in the broader context of all the other measures that we are bringing in.
So, as you know, we've established the Border Security Command, and that's been part of the reasons why, together with our one in, one out deal with France, that we've seen small boats down by over. 40% already this year. We've stopped. 38,000 crossings across the channel. We've got our asylum. claimants who are awaiting their initial decision. It's at its lowest since 2019. We're now down to fewer than half of the hotels that we've that asylum seekers are were placed in.
And we've seen. 80,000 removals since the last election, including. 11,000 foreign national offenders. So this is part, as I said, one part of the armoury that we want to to use. But the problems that we want to tackle are clear. 41% of asylum claims are from people who are already here and hold visas in from another form of entering the country. We have, as colleagues have heard, first tier tribunal where we have.
156,000 appeals.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And at the moment. 95% of asylum decisions get appealed. So this is the context that we're trying to deal with in through the course of this bill. So we've obviously talked about the measures here today, but we're confident that the measures in this bill will start to address as part of that broader armoury, some of the pull factors that are leading us to being seen as one of the most permissive .
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
48,000 crossings stopped. We will have our metrics to measure this. But. So I don't want to, at this stage of the bill's process to put a figure on that , on the impact specifically. But we know the specific measures are specifically. designed to tackle the blockages in the system, the reasons why people are able to frustrate and string out appeals, and why this bill is targeted at those specific things that mean people can string out .
The
The
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Whether it's national referral mechanism issues. One of the things that frustrate the operational removal is both two things I would say. One is that successive number of issues that people raise, not necessarily all together. Also, the fact that it's done very late, often on the steps of the plane, particularly on charter flights. So as an example of that, in. 2025 on all of the charter flights that my teams ran, over a third of the people frustrated their claims through late NRM referrals.
So that's just an example of the kind of things that happen. And that obviously puts a lot of extra cost and wasted resource into the system as well, where I would .
So that's just an example of the kind of things that happen. And that obviously puts a lot of extra cost and wasted resource into the system as well, where I would .
17:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Otherwise use that. resource to remove people legitimately. We've we've we've spoken. There's been much discussion about the, the issue, the challenge of the article eight issue. But could you give me an example of a category of a case that today might be frustrated by article eight that . Would not
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
many cases would we estimate to be to be relevant? Well. Those 71% of those who've had who've been granted to stay here on the basis of article eight. 71% of them had already entered illegally or overstayed. So it gives you a sense of kind of where how often this is used by people who have thwarted other means to be in this country. It's meant to be a safeguard, but I think we had.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Respect and dignity, you know, every, every person we come across, whether it's a voluntary return or an enforced return, whether we deal with a foreign national offender and we follow the rules of policy and law. In doing that, you know, our strapline is stop, manage, remove and protect, you know, safeguarding. vulnerability from a huge component. Part of what we do day to day in how we run and manage our operations. So in terms of the benefits that the IRA will bring, particularly in terms of speeding up and.
discontinuing successive claims, obviously that will allow us to manage and process people much quicker, and it will certainly separate from the people who have .
discontinuing successive claims, obviously that will allow us to manage and process people much quicker, and it will certainly separate from the people who have .
17:23
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Legitimate claim from those who potentially don't. Thank you. And second question, Madam Chair, for for the minister. Minister, you heard me earlier mentioning my home city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West, some of the highest the highest number of asylum seekers living in my constituency, a real pressure on local infrastructure, on housing, compounded by some ill advised policies of the Scottish Government housing policy as well. But as far as this Bill is concerned, can you perhaps provide some of your reflections as to why you think it's necessary and what impact it's going to have in restoring trust and public confidence in not only the immigration .
System and
System and
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
but also social cohesion more widely? I think you're absolutely right. I mean, it's it's it's such an important issue to all of our constituents across the country. We know it's one of the biggest things that comes up on the doorsteps in all the conversations that we have. And everything is seen through the prism of fairness in this country, and rightly so. And that's what this bill aims to do through a number of measures, whether it's things like payment, repayment of support and so on.
This is about saying fairness, and if people come here, we want them to integrate to, to, to settle. If they have a genuine right to be here, we'll always provide that. But we also have to be conscious that in a country where our resources are not infinite, we have to have a managed.
This is about saying fairness, and if people come here, we want them to integrate to, to, to settle. If they have a genuine right to be here, we'll always provide that. But we also have to be conscious that in a country where our resources are not infinite, we have to have a managed.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The entire cost of in 2024, 25 was £4 billion. And as I say, at a time when the British, you know, our public purse is under strain, that is a challenge. We are working hard, as I said, to do everything from all the way up source to prevent illegal movement of people across this country, the people trafficking that we've seen to disrupt the. industrial network of gangs that are. exploiting desperate people to come to this country through doubling our investment in the NCA, etc., working with the French to reduce the numbers of boat crossings to.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Removing people. But the key part of this bill, I think the speeding up of the process, the appeals process, I think, is just one of the most important ways that we can accelerate the process. Nobody should be having to wait for 72 weeks for asylum appeal. No one should be able to exploit and draw out the system with last minute.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Today, does any of that cause concern for you? I think my biggest cause of concern is that things can't go on the way they are, and we want to make sure that we're bringing legislation that deals with that. Of course, there will be things that we will continue to, with the due process of Parliament to work on as the bill ensues. But, you know, as I said, the reality is that, particularly when it comes to the appeals.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The system as it stands at the moment is falling over. It's not serving anyone. So it's important that we build a new structure. I believe a structure that is more flexible, that is more swift, that has all the right safeguards. And, you know, we haven't really had a chance to discuss some of those because obviously we've had, you know, some of the witnesses are sort of critical of the process. But actually, you know, we're talking about building into a system, a high degree of training, high degree of legal support, high standards of professional standards, numerous levels of sort of oversight, and then the opportunity to go on to tribunal appeal after that.
So in the same way, you know, we have a great civil service who are not legally trained but who manage this process. You know, we we are we want to build a body and do it carefully and do it right in a way that means that we are no longer reliant on a, you know, the judicial capacity which is falling over. But we can make those decisions swiftly. But with, say, a properly. professionally trained body that will enable us to make good.
decisions on those appeals, swift decisions on those appeals, and then .
So in the same way, you know, we have a great civil service who are not legally trained but who manage this process. You know, we we are we want to build a body and do it carefully and do it right in a way that means that we are no longer reliant on a, you know, the judicial capacity which is falling over. But we can make those decisions swiftly. But with, say, a properly. professionally trained body that will enable us to make good.
decisions on those appeals, swift decisions on those appeals, and then .
17:23
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Refer to tribunals as and when it's needed. I get that the system that we've got at the moment isn't good enough, but that doesn't mean what you're proposing here is, and we've heard lots of evidence today, that actually the problems don't necessarily lie with the law, but lie with the way the Home Office deal with applications. Are you absolutely sure this is the best bill you can bring forward? Because I think the public are tired.
I think we can agree the public are tired of the potential for governments to say a . System's
I think we can agree the public are tired of the potential for governments to say a . System's
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Not not good enough. Let's have a trial and experiment with this idea. I think I take the the challenge about the quality of decision making in the Home Office, but we're at a situation now where I think it's. 95% of decisions are appealed. As my colleague from Hartlepool flagged earlier, we're in a situation where people know that by appealing, they can lengthen their stay. They can, you know, draw the process out. So it's really important for us that, of course, we're always looking to improve the initial quality of decision making.
We'll be looking to do that. But we're in a world now where we're going from the decision making to a.
We'll be looking to do that. But we're in a world now where we're going from the decision making to a.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Slow, burdensome system at the moment, which is just not working. So bringing in this appeals tier is about getting better quality of decision making at a swifter rate, whilst also saying, you know, it's always our incumbent on us to make sure that we improve the quality of decision making at the Home Office. But I do also want to say, you know, that we've put a lot of money into we've invested a lot into the judicial capacity.
It's we've increased the amount we've spent by 21%. The number of sitting days is up 19%. We've done a lot to try and tackle that. But that's not you know, the number of appeals is still going up. So this is not that. And actually what's what's stayed. constant is the outcome of appeals. So actually, you know, our appeal rate is consistent while the numbers of appeals are going up.
So that says to me that people are recognizing this as a way to thwart . And draw
It's we've increased the amount we've spent by 21%. The number of sitting days is up 19%. We've done a lot to try and tackle that. But that's not you know, the number of appeals is still going up. So this is not that. And actually what's what's stayed. constant is the outcome of appeals. So actually, you know, our appeal rate is consistent while the numbers of appeals are going up.
So that says to me that people are recognizing this as a way to thwart . And draw
17:23
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
system. I don't know whether there's any, you know, I mean, just to as you said, Minister, we're tackling a number of issues in this. Some of it is groundbreaking in terms of asylum cost recovery. We are defining and bringing back article eight much more closely to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, qualifying family members, setting out clear stipulations for both decision makers and the courts in terms of the definition around family life.
Again, a big area of attrition, as the minister set out, I think, you know, 77% of those people using article eight had either arrived illegally or had overstayed a large number of foreign national offenders. Use article eight as a means to either delay or avoid removal from the country, and actually ensuring that that is in line with how article eight is due to be interpreted. That's what this bill seeks to deliver. And with the appeals authority, it is about having all the safeguards, the regulatory training, the procedural training and the professional ability to deal with these cases backed by senior adjudicators that have legal training.
But it's about having a fair and efficient system, because partly, some of the challenges we see at the appeal now is that there is a long gap between someone's initial decision by the Home Office and when that comes before a judge and during that time, a whole series of events can happen that mean it is often a . Different
Again, a big area of attrition, as the minister set out, I think, you know, 77% of those people using article eight had either arrived illegally or had overstayed a large number of foreign national offenders. Use article eight as a means to either delay or avoid removal from the country, and actually ensuring that that is in line with how article eight is due to be interpreted. That's what this bill seeks to deliver. And with the appeals authority, it is about having all the safeguards, the regulatory training, the procedural training and the professional ability to deal with these cases backed by senior adjudicators that have legal training.
But it's about having a fair and efficient system, because partly, some of the challenges we see at the appeal now is that there is a long gap between someone's initial decision by the Home Office and when that comes before a judge and during that time, a whole series of events can happen that mean it is often a . Different
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
which has got nothing to do with replacing the judicial system in this. I think the overturn rate is actually declining. So I think the Home Office is getting more successful overall at those that go before the judge. But the initial decision, to my point earlier, is often the what the judge decides can be very different on the facts than was presented at the Home Office at the beginning, because of the passage of time, the minister talked about, you know, upwards of 68 weeks between someone's appeal being lodged and it being concluded means there are a whole different series of facts that come before the judge.
So the evidence can change in that time . As well.
So the evidence can change in that time . As well.
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
from a pretty bad place. I mean, that's sort of factually the case, isn't it? Well, I think it's been broadly around 50 to about 50% of the refusals that then get overturned. I think that's coming down. But equally, the refusal rate has gone up. So as the minister said, we are refusing more cases. But the . Overturn rate
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Leigh Ingham
-
-
Leigh Ingham
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you for your answers. Panel. So far, it's good news to hear that the overturn rate is. reducing from from those highs that we've seen. And certainly the statistics you gave as minister at the beginning there talking since the general election and the reductions we've seen are really, really welcome. I want to speak to some of that point, because actually in Stafford and the villages, that's what comes up most.
And it's not it's not just one side of the political spectrum that have concerns about our immigration system. It's across the board. And I think it's interesting when you're consistently hearing it from both sides of the spectrum, that there's a lack of faith and a lack of confidence in the system. It does speak to a fundamental issue, I think, which I'm hoping you can explain to me how you think setting up the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help to .
Address
And it's not it's not just one side of the political spectrum that have concerns about our immigration system. It's across the board. And I think it's interesting when you're consistently hearing it from both sides of the spectrum, that there's a lack of faith and a lack of confidence in the system. It does speak to a fundamental issue, I think, which I'm hoping you can explain to me how you think setting up the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help to .
Address
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Appeals process. But it's important, I think, to flag, you know, we've talked about some of the ways in which is independent. It's there on the face of the bill. It's a statutory body in its own right. It's not a crown body. Ministers have a statutory duty to uphold independence. So that's really important to us that we will maintain that independence. The adjudicators, as we've heard, are going to be appointed by chief executive.
These will be merit based appointments. There'll be external annual reporting to Parliament, which I think is really.
These will be merit based appointments. There'll be external annual reporting to Parliament, which I think is really.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And say that still that right of appeal to the upper tribunal. But I think it's also important to recognise that this can't operate in isolation. I think this is part of the problem, why there's been a bit of a crisis in public confidence. It's really important that actually it's it's part of the wider immigration and asylum process. It's going to be accountable for its performance through statutory reporting and scrutiny and oversight, which is not the case that we have at the moment with the separation of judiciary.
So being accountable to Parliament, it's actually providing a mechanism to be accountable to the British people and try and rebuild that, that trust and faith that they should have in their asylum . Process
So being accountable to Parliament, it's actually providing a mechanism to be accountable to the British people and try and rebuild that, that trust and faith that they should have in their asylum . Process
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Concern for a lot of people hearing what we're proposing this legislation. Yeah, I think one of the important things to clarify, which we haven't really heard today, is that it will be up to the family what they decide to do. So if somebody is removed, the family can go with them if that's what they want to do. And I think, you know, we would always put the rights of the child at the forefront of everything. So I think that's really important for us to to say, and I think, you know, important as well to set out the aims of why we want to to do this with article eight.
It's at the moment there's been sort of all sorts of variety of interpretations. It's been very loose. It's been very there's been no consistency in how it's been applied. So I think being able to define and codify this concept of family life in primary. legislation is actually important for sort of for fairness and. consistency as much as anything as well. So we are bringing it in line actually with existing. immigration sort of.
regulations in terms of the what sort of codifies and how we clarify family life. So for us, it's about just trying to make sure that it's it's fair, it's consistent, and it's written into the face of the bill. Yeah, I think that's probably everything I, I wanted to just say on that. I think just to reiterate our in terms of safeguards, our priority is always the welfare of the children. I
It's at the moment there's been sort of all sorts of variety of interpretations. It's been very loose. It's been very there's been no consistency in how it's been applied. So I think being able to define and codify this concept of family life in primary. legislation is actually important for sort of for fairness and. consistency as much as anything as well. So we are bringing it in line actually with existing. immigration sort of.
regulations in terms of the what sort of codifies and how we clarify family life. So for us, it's about just trying to make sure that it's it's fair, it's consistent, and it's written into the face of the bill. Yeah, I think that's probably everything I, I wanted to just say on that. I think just to reiterate our in terms of safeguards, our priority is always the welfare of the children. I
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
playing whack a mole with the Echr? So obviously we're really clear that and we've set out in the impact assessment and others, the areas of article eight, article three is used much less. And that would normally be tested through the asylum claim. Because actually if you were going to have treatment that was at the article three breach, it would normally fall within the asylum and protection angle. So given that article eight is already a qualified right, I didn't immediately follow the logic that then people would then make article three rights, because that would be considered under their asylum claim already.
And so and again, I think if people had article three rights, they would be raised and are raised. We do get article three challenges in various different elements. So that is used now. But I'm I'm not clear how an article eight right. Can . Can
And so and again, I think if people had article three rights, they would be raised and are raised. We do get article three challenges in various different elements. So that is used now. But I'm I'm not clear how an article eight right. Can . Can
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
tightening up article eight, you'll end up with article three claims. So with the immigration system, we always have to think about displacement and and human behaviour. It's not entirely predictable. We will go away and look and review with the minister the point made today. But I couldn't immediately see how someone was using a subsisting relationship . Under
17:23
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
article eight as a as an article three barrier. Okay, perfect. I'm sure we'll pick that up in line by line as we as we were talking earlier about the drafting of this. Generally, there's been quite a lot of. criticism from witnesses today on the legal drafting. And no offense if any of you were involved, but it's general.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
So I think this is about saying a decision on error in law goes to the upper tribunal, which is the case now in terms of first tier tribunal challenges on errors in law go to the upper tribunal. So that's what we're setting. There is the clearly the the procedure to appeal the decision of the new authority into on basis of law . Goes
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
You know, that very clearly shows that people think that when they come to the country that we have essentially a a more liberal system than many other countries in Europe. And there are other reasons, of course, why people want to come to the UK. But people generally do think that we do have a more loose interpretation of some of our. responsibilities than other countries. So it's really important to us that we are clear through this bill that we are going to fulfil our obligations, but we're also going to make sure that people cannot.
exploit the system, they cannot find.
exploit the system, they cannot find.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And that we will have a system that is fair, efficient, effective. And I believe that's one part of our army which will see our trajectory continue in terms of. reducing small boats alongside, as I said, all the other measures that we're putting in place as well. In terms of removals, I'm absolutely convinced that it will certainly speed up our number of removals and speed up the time in which we're able to undertake removals and deal with some of the last minute claims that we've had from my colleague today about when people are literally on their way to the .
Plains,
Plains,
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you Jonathan. Thank you, chair Minister, obviously you're a neighbouring MP to me and you understand only too well the anger that exists in in your constituency and my constituency of Hartlepool. around illegal migrants. particularly given that the decision to outsource asylum. accommodation by the last. government led to our communities being unfairly targeted. So really, the test for many of my constituents will come down to will this bill result in a reduction in the number of illegal migrants in our communities? So what modelling has been carried out .
To
To
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
of this bill on reducing the number of illegal immigrants. Thank you. I said it's part of our armoury. And I recognise, you know, as you do very deeply, the sense of fairness that people feel when communities like ours, which are struggling on all kinds of levels, whether that's access to public services, whether that's employment opportunities, whether that's levels of poverty and broader social fabric, as well as some of the community cohesion challenges that we face in this country.
And that is these are really important issues. And I think, you know, as a Labour government, we always want to have fairness at the heart of everything that we do. So the priority for for this bill is to make sure that we are no longer having a system where it's say, it's part of a broader armoury, but it's part of a moving to a system where people, British people in this country, do not feel that they are that they say hospitality, but their their sanctuary is being.
And that is these are really important issues. And I think, you know, as a Labour government, we always want to have fairness at the heart of everything that we do. So the priority for for this bill is to make sure that we are no longer having a system where it's say, it's part of a broader armoury, but it's part of a moving to a system where people, British people in this country, do not feel that they are that they say hospitality, but their their sanctuary is being.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
That people are not having the opportunity to access what they might not be able to access. And that where we do extend a hand, for example, through the repayment of support that we have helped people to find a life of safety and sanctuary in this country, that when they're able then to integrate and become part of our communities, they will repay that with the responsibilities. I think fairness and. responsibility and. contribution is really at the heart of everything that we we should be looking to do in this country, and that's whilst upholding .
Our
Our
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Then appealed or accepted or refused on appeal. And I wondered if there was any way the department could try and get more of that information to us before we consider the bill properly, line by line. Then again, the Refugee Council said there was no information on the proportion of people claiming asylum claiming asylum support, as opposed to living off their own means while they're here, or potentially just not off any means and being exploited. And I think that's important information to know about in the context of the repayments clauses.
So could we try to get those before we consider it? I think the . Government
So could we try to get those before we consider it? I think the . Government
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
get that to the committee. If we have if we have access to that information. And then and then a few of the witnesses and some of the written evidence is asking for more information to be published in relation to. regulations that are going to follow the. legislation before we consider those clauses of the bill. I think those are. mainly in clause 21. The the.
definitions and the criteria behind. protected protection status. And then in clause.
definitions and the criteria behind. protected protection status. And then in clause.
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
form published to the committee before we consider those clauses? Thank you. Yeah, I think yeah, my understanding is say, particularly on I think, say, the core protection point. And I'll also take your point about the destitution. Our intention was always to set out that detail in due course, any legislative changes. Obviously we want to make sure that we lay that out properly for the proper scrutiny.
17:23
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
So yeah, I'll endeavour to do that for the committee. And then a quick question about about engagement. One thing that's come out of my own. constituency work is. people doing making these. applications successful. Asylum seekers. mainly in the end. Sometimes when they get my help, they there are a lot of criticisms of the.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
The way that the forms are understanding what they need to do, being able to provide the right information, being asked for it in a clear way, all of those different things that might cause discrimination within the process or cause process or cause claims not to be approved when they should have been. I think we've established that that claims that should have been approved in the first place are a burden on the courts at the moment, but also some human error mistakes within the Home Office.
But I would like to ask whether you've managed to. engage with any asylum seekers about solving the problems that way, or about their views on this bill. I know we've had people. representing asylum seekers in here, but engagement with the actual . People
But I would like to ask whether you've managed to. engage with any asylum seekers about solving the problems that way, or about their views on this bill. I know we've had people. representing asylum seekers in here, but engagement with the actual . People
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
I think, be useful. And I wondered what the department has done. Yeah. Thank you. I'm always a believer in kind of service user feedback and people who've been through a process and have that lived experience in helping us develop better policy making. So I think it's sort of this build process notwithstanding. I think it's something I'd be keen to look at more broadly in terms of this bill process. Obviously, there was a consultation, I believe, before my time, after the Home Secretary's.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
everybody would have had the opportunity to feed into. But I will reflect on the point about how we can perhaps look at specific user experience that they might not have been able to share during the process for fear of. compromising their situation, perhaps, but whether there's another means for which we can talk to people who've been through the process and always . Continually
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
to improve our processes. So most of our consultation is done through the advocacy group. So we have a series of there's a national framework of stakeholder engagement, various different aspects children, accommodation elements like that, that the asylum group runs. So much of that lived experience is expressed through those groups. And we. That is done in partnership with organisations such as UNHCR and Refugee Council, but also has a community engagement team .
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
That get a lot of information from people who use our services. Absolutely. So we've got two very distinct elements of engagement. I've got a national community engagement team that just link in with local authorities, charity groups, you know, churches and other places of worship and communities more generally, just around.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Not necessarily around enforcement. And I've only just this week stood up a new command called the returns assistant and engagement operations. And the whole purpose of that command. Well, not the whole purpose, but primarily the focus is people who are failed asylum seekers and are still in the UK and would need some returns assistance. And part of that is obviously engagement, communication. There are often language barriers and, you know, other other challenges in.
communication and to build up a level of trust as well. So the focus of that command is to. entirely look at trying to increase the voluntary. returns focus, which I think is my primary focus. I would much rather do a voluntary return than an enforced return.
communication and to build up a level of trust as well. So the focus of that command is to. entirely look at trying to increase the voluntary. returns focus, which I think is my primary focus. I would much rather do a voluntary return than an enforced return.
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
affected. The way you could ask about the provisions in this bill as well. Yeah. And we do we do when we pick up feedback from people, particularly around the system. So for example, one of the things we recently rolled out are different apps and communication systems that we wouldn't have before being much more on the front foot in contacting people early in the stage of removals process rather than later. And what we do do that we do feed back to our asylum colleagues, any.
information or feedback that would be . Relevant
information or feedback that would be . Relevant
17:23
17:23
17:23
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
improve the process. Thank you. In Goldsboro. Thank you very much, chair. While the piece of evidence we were given earlier on today was that as much as modern slavery. legislation is a very good thing for the United Kingdom, we've not necessarily been pulling our weight as we go forward. I'd just be interested to hear from the panel in front of us, maybe starting with the minister first. What .
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Progress do you believe will be made by this bill becoming law? Great. Thank you. It's good to have the opportunity to talk about the modern slavery aspects, because it's something obviously we're proud of in this country. It's, you know, it's important to us and we're committed to to ending modern slavery as a government. It's really important to us, but we want to make sure that we support and protect the processes that are there to, to support and identify modern slavery victims.
The number of modern slavery. referrals has increased by over. 900% since 2014. So that's again shows to us the the scale of the growing.
The number of modern slavery. referrals has increased by over. 900% since 2014. So that's again shows to us the the scale of the growing.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
And as I said, you know, we've we're very concerned about the number of late claims that have been it feels. deliberately used to thwart returns. So as as we've heard a third that have a third of the removals that have failed have involved modern slavery referral. 70 three quarters of those were raised. between 3 p.m. and 6 a.m. of the day before removal. So, you know, we're really keen that we give people the opportunity all the way through their.
experience to raise these concerns with us. We know sometimes trauma and experience leads to delay in reporting, but. individuals going through this process have multiple opportunities to disclose. exploitation from the moment they arrive. Contract contact with first responders that we've heard about , who are highly trained in identifying modern slavery, immigration enforcement, police, local.
experience to raise these concerns with us. We know sometimes trauma and experience leads to delay in reporting, but. individuals going through this process have multiple opportunities to disclose. exploitation from the moment they arrive. Contract contact with first responders that we've heard about , who are highly trained in identifying modern slavery, immigration enforcement, police, local.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
You know, there's a there's a vast range of people that they will come into contact with. And we always encourage people to identify we want people to identify this issue earlier in the process as soon as possible, so that we can deal with it and not have it thrown at the last minute as a as a means to sort of thwart removal. And as I said, just to conclude, I'm very proud of our record on modern slavery, but there's definitely something that doesn't quite stack up to me when I read that we, as the UK, refer more.
victims than the whole of the rest of Europe combined. So in.
victims than the whole of the rest of Europe combined. So in.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Integrity of it as well. Thoughts from the rest of the panel at all. Yeah. So my starting point on this is, first of all, just to acknowledge that the the NRM plays a vital role in. safeguarding and supporting victims and that even in an operational sense, is right at the forefront of my team's training and focus. What we've seen. increasingly year by year is, you know, the minister just referred to some of the timings of the late.
claims and the statistic that I would share. I did mention it before, but I'll reiterate it is if you take just the year. 2025 and you take all of our charter.
claims and the statistic that I would share. I did mention it before, but I'll reiterate it is if you take just the year. 2025 and you take all of our charter.
17:23
17:23
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
know, which are in, you know, up to nearly 100 that year. one third of all of the people that we had to remove from flights were because of late claims. And the context here is in on an average case, and I've got case studies that I can talk to with the number of people, both statutory and non-statutory, who are first responders, that people have the. opportunity to raise their claims to. They just don't do it.
They don't do it, and they don't do it for one simple reason is because doing it late will absolutely thwart their claim, because we have to make a very quick judgment on reasonable grounds. And then that in itself means you have to remove people from the. process and obviously consider their, their grounds and their case. And more often than not, the reasonable grounds are not met. And then you then go back into the.
So it's wasted.
They don't do it, and they don't do it for one simple reason is because doing it late will absolutely thwart their claim, because we have to make a very quick judgment on reasonable grounds. And then that in itself means you have to remove people from the. process and obviously consider their, their grounds and their case. And more often than not, the reasonable grounds are not met. And then you then go back into the.
So it's wasted.
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
The, you know, the improvements that are being made through this bill. I think that just follows on to the next point, because obviously, the bill is not just focusing on the individual, it's also taking action on businesses as well. And this is quite important for South Norfolk because we are a part of the country at the moment, which is seeing a lot of speculation over solar farms, for example. And we know we don't have domestic production of solar panels within the United Kingdom.
And there is huge concern within my. constituency about modern slavery, actually in the supply chains. And so I was just wondering, what sort of action do you believe will be in the bill, which will help us tackle that by giving more accountability and. responsibility and financial penalties as . Well, to.
And there is huge concern within my. constituency about modern slavery, actually in the supply chains. And so I was just wondering, what sort of action do you believe will be in the bill, which will help us tackle that by giving more accountability and. responsibility and financial penalties as . Well, to.
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Corporations that may have modern slavery in their supply chains. Thank you. Yes. I'm pleased that in this bill we're going to be bringing financial penalties if people fail to comply with. transparency in their supply chains. But for me, that's just sort of one step. And I know that Department for business, industry, Science and Technology, I think is its full name. Now. They're in the process of conducting a review of the responsible business conduct, which obviously supply chains and modern slavery is a key part of.
So I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence there, and I hope that they will then take a strong lead on actions for .
So I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence there, and I hope that they will then take a strong lead on actions for .
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Or noted one of the witnesses today saying that compliance was an enforcement was an issue. So I undertake to take that away and have a look at that. But for me, the key thing is having the legislative framework. And then we can start to to do the implementation as well. So it's important to get these measures through to work with DB, DB and and make sure that . We are
17:23
17:23
17:23
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
So we can get everyone in, because we're running very short of time. Tom Gordon Thank you, chair, I've got quite a technical question. I set up a joint committee for Human Rights, and when we were dealing with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, one of the issues that I asked for then Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, about was. compatibility with the EU Victims Directive as a part of the Windsor framework, obviously, which was negotiated by the last government.
There was a requirement for in Northern Ireland to still maintain compatibility with EU law. Does this Bill propose does the proposed Bill have any issues with. compatibility in Northern Ireland? And then the other question is around. The Good Friday.
There was a requirement for in Northern Ireland to still maintain compatibility with EU law. Does this Bill propose does the proposed Bill have any issues with. compatibility in Northern Ireland? And then the other question is around. The Good Friday.
17:23
17:23
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
The European Convention on Human Rights to be embedded in Northern Ireland, too. Are there any. concerns around the. applicability of those issues and then been engaged in this bill and how that might, could, might or could be challenged in courts in Northern Ireland? Because I think the last . Thing that
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
anyone wants is more bills being dragged through the courts. So I think and this has been the subject of litigation already, which has concluded, I think, that that doesn't relate in respect of either people who don't have lawful status in the United Kingdom, that it related to citizens of the Republic, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as opposed to, say, as I say, I think there was case law on this that was brought against a previous legislation, and the courts found that it was consistent and that the alignment issues that you talked about didn't directly relate in terms of immigration law.
But we can write to you in full details. But as I say, this is the immigration legislation.
But we can write to you in full details. But as I say, this is the immigration legislation.
17:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think this will now have to be the last question as we're running very short of time. So I think the effectiveness of the measures around article eight will have a large part to determine the success or otherwise of the bill. The government says. 77,000 applications were granted on article eight grounds last year. How many of those would have been refused under the . Measures being put
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
I'll come back to the committee and write with that information. That's okay. Thank you. Dan, you know, I think the data in the impact assessment in terms of the loss that we see both on the national referral mechanism and the removals, where it would be our intention, obviously, to reduce that attrition as much as possible from those both. So there's a number of elements to both the late claims process.
The new procedures under the II A, as well as the changes in terms of treatment of credibility under the national referral mechanisms. Because actually and Bas can probably talk more to this, is that you'll see people using multiple channels. And partly the intention of the bill is to ensure that there is an appeal that deals with all of those issues, and if they're brought late or after the notifications that they're treated as bad faith. That's that's the intention here.
So there's a number of elements in which so isolating just individual bits of the . Article
The new procedures under the II A, as well as the changes in terms of treatment of credibility under the national referral mechanisms. Because actually and Bas can probably talk more to this, is that you'll see people using multiple channels. And partly the intention of the bill is to ensure that there is an appeal that deals with all of those issues, and if they're brought late or after the notifications that they're treated as bad faith. That's that's the intention here.
So there's a number of elements in which so isolating just individual bits of the . Article
17:23
17:23
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
will make it quite difficult to assess. Yes. And I think sorry if just just to build on that. So so I think the impact assessment says that article eight reforms will result in an additional. 3600 people per year being removed. That's on the basis of our analysis, finding 31% of people who were refused. Article eight, application eight, article eight applications were removed from the UK or claimed asylum.
3600 figure is estimated by applying the 31% proportion to the. 11,700 total number of people estimated to be refused an article eight claim due to the measures in . The bill. So hopefully that's a
3600 figure is estimated by applying the 31% proportion to the. 11,700 total number of people estimated to be refused an article eight claim due to the measures in . The bill. So hopefully that's a
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23
17:23