Asylum Bill could lead to serious breaches of Human Rights

Joint Committee on Human Rights - Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

MPs on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, have expressed grave concerns that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, in it's present form, will lead to serious breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.They are recommending that parliament should alter the bill to safeguard these rights, including the rights to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, to liberty, to respect for private and family life, to adequate housing, food and clothing, and to appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance for children seeking asylum.

The full report can be downloaded in Word. Joint-Committee.doc

Some of the concerns raised by the MP's:

16. Three aspects of the clause 54 make it hard to be confident that it would provide adequate protection for any of the human rights of those affected by it.

17. First, the test of making a claim 'as soon as reasonably practicable' seems unacceptably imprecise and lacking in objectivity to determine whether or not someone should be eligible for support necessary to respect his or her human rights.

18. Secondly, the claimant would not be allowed to appeal to an adjudicator against the decision that he or she was ineligible for support under the new clause.

19. Thirdly, clause 54(1)(b) would place on every claimant the burden of satisfying the Secretary of State that the claim for asylum was made as soon as possible after the claimant had arrived in the United Kingdom.

================

30. Part 5 of the Bill deals with appeals against immigration decisions.[35] Clauses 90, 91 and 92 would prevent a person who is in the United Kingdom from appealing to an adjudicator against immigration decisions, or against a decision to remove him or her to a 'safe third country', on the ground that it would violate one of the person's Convention rights, . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . if the Secretary of State has certified that the claim of a violation of the Convention right is 'clearly unfounded'. The person would have to leave the country before being entitled to appeal on that ground. The Secretary of State's certificate would be amenable to judicial review, but there would be nothing to prevent the person from being removed before the application for judicial review was heard.

37. The presumption that a country is safe is of questionable validity. As observed on re-commitment, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) does not accept that any country can be declared 100 per cent safe,[39] a view shared by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union.[40] . . . . . . . .

. . . .There is also widespread discrimination against certain groups, such as Roma in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.

. . . . . .in view of the well-authenticated threats to human rights which remain in the states seeking accession to the European Union, we consider that a presumption of safety, even if rebuttable, would present a serious risk that human rights would be inadequately protected.

49. We draw the following matters to the attention of each House on human rights grounds.

— There is a risk that leaving a person destitute would inevitably threaten a violation of rights under Articles 3 and/or 8 of the ECHR (paragraph 8 above).

— There is a risk that the power to support children without related adults might lead to the separation of members of a family, giving rise to a risk of a violation of Article 8 (paragraph 8).

— There is a danger that clause 54, inserted in the Bill on re-commitment, would authorise a violation of the right to adequate housing, food and clothing under Article 11(1) of the ICESC (paragraphs 10-15).

— There are weaknesses of safeguards for human rights in clause 54, in view of:

(i) the burden being placed on the claimant to satisfy the Secretary of State that a claimant has claimed asylum as soon as reasonably practicable;

(ii) the lack of objectivity in the requirement that a person must claim asylum as soon as reasonably practicable in order to be entitled to support;

(iii) the lack of any appeal to an adjudicator against a decision denying support; and

(iv) the absence of any power to provide support pending an application for judicial review of the decision to deny support (paragraphs 16-19).

— There are doubts as to the effect of clause 56, authorising the making of regulations to allow support to be withheld if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claimant has given a full and accurate account of various matters and is co-operating with the Secretary of State's further enquiries (paragraphs 23-25).

— There are weaknesses in safeguards for human rights in clause 56 and a risk of a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR through a potential threat to the privilege against self-incrimination (paragraphs 27-29).

— We are concerned that the presumption that certain states are generally safe could lead to people being subjected to threats to their human rights if removed to those countries, and that the power to specify new 'safe' states carries the same risks and is subject to insufficient safeguards (paragraph 35-39).

— We are concerned at the over-breadth of the proposed new clause, to be re-introduced on Third Reading, to allow conditions to be attached to people who are admitted to the United Kingdom pending a decision as to whether to give directions for their removal, or the implementation of such directions (paragraphs 41-48).