Key Facts

• Clause 18 introduces priority removal notices (PRNs) for individuals liable for removal or deportation.
• Subsection (3) of the clause defines a PRN which imposes duties on claimants to provide statements, grounds, information, and evidence within a specified period.
• The amendment by Tom Pursglove removes paragraph (b) as it is considered superfluous.
• Siobhain McDonagh proposes Amendment 154 defining 'good reasons' for late compliance.
• The amendment includes conditions such as being a victim of torture, gender-based violence, human trafficking, or suffering from serious health issues.
• Amendment 41 seeks to remove the phrase that considers late provision damaging to credibility.
• Clause 20 in the Nationality and Borders Bill aims to damage the credibility of asylum seekers who provide evidence late.
• Women for Refugee Women has expressed concern that these clauses will cause harm to women seeking safety and lead to unfairness in the system.
• As of March 2021, there were 66,185 people awaiting an initial decision on asylum claims, the highest number in over a decade.
• Clause 20 specifies that late submission of evidence must be considered damaging to a claimant’s credibility.
• The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association criticizes clause 20 for limiting decision-makers' ability to use their judgment.
• Poor-quality interviews can lead to incorrect decisions by the Home Office.
• Clauses 16, 18, 20, and 23 address the provision of evidence before a specified date.
• Amendment 41 removes credibility implications for late evidence in response to priority removal notices.
• Clause 20 already meets its aim by considering good reasons for late evidence without amendment.
• The government intends to publish guidance on good reasons after Royal Assent, not within an arbitrary deadline of 30 days.
• Siobhain McDonagh proposes Amendment 42.
• The amendment aims to protect the right to an onward appeal from an expedited appeal decision by the Upper Tribunal in certain cases.
• Government amendments 68 and 69 seek to clarify the expedited appeals process.
• Government proposes three amendments to clause 21.
• Clause 21 creates a new expedited appeal process heard in the upper tribunal.
• Section 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides for various upper tribunal decisions to be excluded from onward appeal.
• The Law Society raised concerns about the proposals increasing pressure on judges and undermining access to justice.
• Adrian Berry of ILPA spoke against clause 21 during evidence sessions, highlighting issues with expedited appeals and lack of Court of Appeal review opportunities.
• Between 2016 and 2018, 57% of first-tier tribunal asylum appeals were dismissed, dropping to 52% in 2019-20.
• Clause 22 provides up to seven hours of legally aided advice for recipients of priority removal notices.
• The clause aims to ensure individuals understand their notice and can raise reasons against removal.
• Organisations like Bail for Immigration Detainees argue that the provision is insufficient and comes after years of legal aid cuts since 2013.
• The extension of legal aid will cost between £4 million and £6 million.
• Individuals served with a priority removal notice (PRN) will receive up to seven hours of free legal advice.
• Additional legal advice is available after the initial seven hours through in-scope legal aid schemes, such as for asylum claims or appeals.
• Amendment 43 would remove the provision stating that 'minimal weight' should be given to any evidence provided late.
• Amendment 131 sets out circumstances where the deciding authority must accept good reasons for providing evidence late, including claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity and minors arriving in the UK.
• Amendment 44 aims to disapply Clause 23 in cases where claimants are at risk of persecution by the Taliban.
• The amendments aim to protect vulnerable groups like women fleeing sexual and gender-based violence.
• Clause 23 instructs decision makers to give minimal weight to later evidence unless there are good reasons.
• Women may face threats from traffickers or guilt and shame preventing them from disclosing relevant information immediately.
• Clause 23 is criticised for potentially penalising individuals like Maira Shahbaz, a 15-year-old Christian who fled Pakistan after being kidnapped and forced into marriage.
• Rainbow Migration warns that Clause 23 would be detrimental to LGBT+ people due to difficulties in providing evidence of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
• The Home Office completed a review on asylum claims based on religious and LGBT+ grounds but has refused to publish it since February 2020.
• Clause 16, together with clauses 17 and 23, provides flexibility in considering reasons why evidence might be provided late.
• Decision makers have discretion to assess case-by-case whether there are good reasons for late evidence submission.
• Amendment 43 would remove the minimal weight principle, while amendment 131 would place a statutory obligation on decision makers to accept certain categories of claims as having good reason.
• Tom Pursglove defends the Bill's approach by stating that guidance will establish relevant factors for case determination.
• Neil Coyle questions the lack of specificity in the Bill regarding evidence required from gay asylum seekers.
• Stuart McDonald expresses concern over the clause wording and suggests Home Office reconsideration.
• In 2019-20, detained immigration appeals took almost 12 weeks on average from receipt through disposal.
• Amendment 46 would require the tribunal to cease treating cases as accelerated if it is in the interests of justice.
• The Court of Appeal previously found similar rules unlawful for creating a system where asylum and human rights appeals were disposed too quickly, denying appellants a fair opportunity.
• The clause aims to recreate an accelerated detained appeal process which was declared unlawful in 2015.
• Appeals must be lodged within five working days of receiving a decision, with decisions expected no later than 25 days after the appeal date.
• Half of all appeals against immigration decisions were successful from June 2019 data.
• The Government opposes amendments that would undermine the effective working of the accelerated detained appeals process.
• New clause 7 sets out a duty on the tribunal procedure committee to make rules for an accelerated detained appeals route with fixed maximum timeframes.
• The new route will allow appellants more time to seek legal advice and prepare their case compared to previous rules.
• Clause 25 deals with removing out-of-country appeal rights for claims certified as clearly unfounded.
• Amendment 159 would prevent vulnerable persons from being removed to unsafe states under specific conditions.
• Vulnerable individuals include those suffering from mental health issues, torture victims, sexual violence survivors, and others listed in the amendment.
• Schedule 3 aims to make removals easier by introducing a presumption that specified countries are safe based on their compliance with article 3 of the European convention of human rights.
• Rights of appeal will not be afforded either to asylum seekers on the basis of removal to safe countries or to clearly unfounded human rights claims.
• The MP declines to disclose details about negotiations with specific countries regarding safe country designations.
• 4,561 'notices of intent' were served to individuals regarding inadmissibility action.
• Removals and deportations have been more difficult during the last 18 months due to covid-19.
• The government is committed to upholding international obligations including under the 1951 refugee convention.
• Schedule 3 aims to transfer asylum claims to safe third countries.
• Specified countries will be presumed safe under the ECHR Article 3 obligations.
• Claimants must present strong evidence to overturn the presumption of safety.
• The Secretary of State can add countries to the safe list.
• Rights of appeal are not afforded for removals to safe countries or unsubstantiated claims.
• £30 million in aid announced on 3 September to Afghanistan's neighbouring countries.
• The statement criticises clause 26 for permitting removal of asylum seekers from the UK while their claim is being determined.
• Schedule 3 allows the Government to remove people seeking asylum to countries outside the UK during processing.
• The Labour party opposes clause stand part and will vote against schedule 3, citing concerns over human rights abuses in similar systems like Australia.
• In 2016, The Guardian released records of more than 2,000 incident reports from Nauru documenting abuse.
• At least 12 people are reported to have died in the camps.
• The Australian Human Rights Commission found that 34% of children in detention suffered from mental health disorders requiring psychiatric referral.
• The annual cost per person of holding someone offshore in Nauru or Papua New Guinea has been estimated at $3.4 million.
• Loghman Sawari is detained despite being accepted as a refugee in Australia since 2014.
• Reza Barati died after being beaten by guards during protests on Manus Island.
• Offshoring poses risks to LGBT+ individuals and survivors of sexual violence.
• The Australian Government's policy applied to all asylum seekers arriving by boat, regardless of their vulnerability.
• Pregnant women and survivors of trafficking are subject to offshore detention policies.
• A 2015 Lampard report on Yarl’s Wood highlighted 10 staff dismissals for sexual impropriety towards detainees between 2007 and 2015.
• The Kaldor Centre report noted over 24,000 asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat after the reintroduction of offshore detention.
• Stuart McDonald echoes concerns about Australia's offshoring scheme.
• The UNHCR criticises schedule 3 of the Bill for not meeting international standards.
• Tom Pursglove clarifies that the UK is not working with Denmark to open an offshore detention centre.
• The amendment addresses clause 29 of the Nationality and Borders Bill.
• It aims to maintain the status quo by removing the requirement for decision-makers to assess claims on the balance of probabilities.
• The UNHCR has highlighted challenges in proving certain types of persecution, such as LGBT-related persecution.
• Clause 29 aims to introduce a distinct test with clearly articulated standards of proof.
• The clause raises the standard of proof for establishing a convention reason (characteristic) to balance of probabilities.
• Training and guidance will be updated to ensure detailed interviews.
• Clause 30 aims to define 'particular social group' for refugees under the Refugee Convention.
• The Government's approach requires individuals to meet both conditions set out in subsections (3) and (4).
• Stuart McDonald proposes using either one of the two conditions, arguing it aligns with the House of Lords case of Fornah.
• Amendments seek statutory carve-outs from differentiation for various cohorts under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention.
• Clause 10 provides powers but does not compel the Secretary of State to act in a certain way, leaving discretion based on individual circumstances.
• The Government aims to uphold the first safe country principle and deter dangerous journeys across Europe.
• The current Bill proposes automatic deeming of a person as having committed a particularly serious crime if they receive one year prison sentence.
• Stuart McDonald's amendment suggests changing this to four years.
• Labour raises concerns about individuals who may have been trafficked and forced to commit offences.
• Clause 35 aims to redefine 'particularly serious crimes' as those punishable by at least 12 months imprisonment.
• Amendments seek to make the assessment of whether an individual has committed a particularly serious crime rebuttable.
• The Government proposes that a sentence of 12 months or more indicates a particularly serious crime, ensuring all such offences are captured.
• Amendment 135 aims to clarify the meaning of 'protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention'.
• Clause 14 as drafted ensures that principles of the refugee convention should be met if individuals are to be removed to a safe country.
• The Committee voted against amendment 55.