The UK government’s immigration and asylum bill puts forward a number of proposals to overhaul the asylum system. These include changes to how human rights are interpreted, and requiring refugees to pay back some of the support they receive. If passed, it will be the fifth immigration act adopted since 2022.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood says the aim is to establish “a firm but fair immigration system”. But will these measures have their intended effect?
Reforming asylum appeals
The legislation proposes reforming the asylum appeals system through the creation of a new Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. This will involve training members of the public to be asylum adjudicators, “much like magistrates”. This is intended to speed up the asylum appeals process, which currently has a huge backlog.
The UN refugee agency has warned that similar efforts in Australia led to significant delays and increased backlog in the asylum system. These concerns are exacerbated by the fact that many who come before the appeals body will not have legal representation, due to an acute shortage of legal aid in the immigration sector.
It would be more sensible for the Home Office to invest in improving the quality of its initial decision making, which has been heavily criticised by the chief inspector of borders and immigration, and ultimately leads to high numbers of appeals.
Reinterpreting human rights
The legislation also introduces changes to the interpretation of Article 8 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) – the right to private and family life. It says that “family life” should only refer to cohabiting partners, parents, and children under 18, except in exceptional circumstances. It is unclear how this would differ significantly from current practice, which is to consider “family life” as excluding, relationships between parents and adult non-dependent children and adult siblings.
The bill instructs judges to factor in the extent to which the individual would be financially independent if they remain in the UK. And it clarifies that any family life established while the person was in the UK without leave should not be taken into account.
Mahmood claims this “tougher test” will prevent foreign criminals from relying on distant family relationships to prevent their deportation.
But, as experts have repeatedly argued, Article 8 is already a “qualified right”. This means it must be balanced against other factors such as public safety or national security. UK law already takes a very strict interpretation of Article 8, which states that the public interest in removing foreign offenders will almost always outweigh any Article 8 rights.
The impact assessment attached to the bill suggests that these changes will result in removal of an additional 3,600 people per year. But most people whose Article 8 claims are rejected will remain in the UK, as they are unable to be removed for more logistical reasons.
In many cases, lack of coordination and administrative errors in the Home Office cause failed removals. Complications around booking flights, arranging escorts and other practicalities have all been found to prevent deportations, as well as procedural issues such as lack of travel documents.
But continued misrepresentation in the media and political rhetoric means the ECHR has continued to be a scapegoat.
Temporary refugee status
The bill provides for the replacement of the current system of refugee protection status, which last for five years, with a more temporary “core protection status” of 30 months at a time. This was already introduced through a change to the immigration rules in March of this year.
Subjecting people to short, precarious forms of leave affects their ability to find employment, accommodation and integrate into society.
Read more:
Shabana Mahmood is wrong: refugee status was never ‘permanent from day one’
The Home Office is currently failing to cope with existing asylum processing. It is not clear how the department will have the capacity to review cases this frequently. Back in March, a parliamentary committee expressed concern that “the Home Office has not fully thought through the implications of the policy”.
Separately, Mahmood has announced a new scheme to allow local communities and to sponsor refugees to settle in their area. A refugee work route is also expected to open next year. These are concessions to the valid critique that the reason refugees make irregular journeys – including via small boat – is due to the lack of legal routes available.
Community refugee sponsorship in the UK, however, has existed for some time. This approach is a welcome break from negative rhetoric on refugees. But focusing solely on private sponsorship could been seen as a measure to offload responsibility for support onto communities and the private sector, rather than the Home Office.
Repaying asylum support
The proposed changes could also require refugees who have received government accommodation and support to repay some of those costs – what some may consider a “refugee tax”. The bill is remarkably light on detail, specifying only that the home secretary “may” require someone to make repayments. There have been reports this would require refugees to pay back up to £10,000.
In practice, this will disproportionately impact those with caring responsibilities and disabilities, and discourage people from seeking support – pushing them into extreme precarity and making them vulnerable to exploitation.
Government accommodation is currently only provided to those who would otherwise be destitute. Asylum seekers are generally barred from working and have no control over the amount of time they must spend in accommodation while they await a Home Office decision.
Restricting modern slavery protections
Finally, the bill introduces several changes to the UK’s modern slavery framework. It limits protection for those who make “late” claims that they have been victims of trafficking, to address “those vexatiously seeking to block their legitimate removal from the UK”. This is despite evidence that it is normal for people who have suffered highly traumatising experiences to delay disclosure.
Far from safeguarding victims of trafficking or making the system more fair, the bill’s proposals are likely to make many asylum seekers and refugees more vulnerable. It is these kinds of measures that have led to criticisms of the bill, such as the words of Lord Alf Dubs, as “performative cruelty”.
Sarah Singer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.