Key Facts

• Amendment 18 modifies the definition of “connection”.
• Amendment 19 removes subsection (6) allowing removal to any safe third state after denial.
• Amendment 20 requires inadmissible claims be considered under immigration rules if removal is unlikely.
• Amendment 26 prevents declarations unless there are reciprocal arrangements with the state.
• The clause allows the Secretary of State to declare asylum claims inadmissible if they consider a person has a connection to a safe third state.
• Since January, around 4,500 asylum seekers have been subjected to inadmissibility procedures with only seven being found inadmissible and nobody removed.
• The Dublin rules, which ended with the UK's transition period from the EU, included safeguards absent from the Government’s scheme.
• Amendments 20, 21, 18, 22-25 are proposed to fix flaws in clause 14.
• Amendment 20 changes 'may' to 'must' for considering claims under certain circumstances.
• Amendment 23 removes vague condition 5 from the Bill.
• Clause 14 puts existing immigration law on inadmissibility into the Bill.
• Over 4,500 asylum claims were put on hold after the implementation of the inadmissibility provisions; only seven cases were transferred to another country.
• The clause sets a low standard for when a state would be considered 'safe' under international law.
• The amendments seek to amend Bill provisions relating to inadmissibility of asylum claimants connected to safe third countries.
• No one is being returned to Afghanistan at the moment due to evolving circumstances there.
• Situations in individual countries are kept under constant review, and judgments on approach made accordingly.
• The MP mentions current and potential future case-by-case return agreements with countries.
• Albania is highlighted as an example of a country where a recent returns agreement was established.
• The MP states that the government seeks to negotiate readmission arrangements with key EU member states.
• Amendment 36 is proposed in clause 16 to remove the ability to serve an evidence notice on certain categories of person.
• The Committee divided on amendment 56: Ayes 7, Noes 9.
• Clause 14 was ordered to stand part of the Bill with Ayes 9 and Noes 7.
• Amendment 37 aims to prevent serving an evidence notice on persons who made protection claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• Amendment 153 seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing evidence notices to those under 18, victims of modern slavery, and others with serious health conditions.
• Clause 16 provides for an evidence notice requiring claimants to provide evidence within a specified timeframe.
• Amendment 36 and 37 would limit the range of applicants facing evidence notices.
• Amendment 153 excludes additional groups like those suffering from mental ill health.
• The British Journal of Psychiatry study in 2007 found that sexual violence affects disclosure during Home Office interviews.
• The clauses cut across a basic principle of English and Scottish law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
• Clause 16 permits the Home Secretary to serve an evidence notice on a person who has made a protection claim, forcing them to provide evidence before a specified date.
• The Home Office’s policy recognises that there are many good reasons why women who have survived sexual and other gender-based violence would be late in applying for asylum or submitting evidence.
• Coyle visited an asylum hostel in Southwark without prior notice.
• Asylum seekers reported receiving no specific support beyond an interpreter for making applications.
• Legal aid information was included in induction materials but not explained to individuals.
• In the year ending March 2020, there were 5,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children looked after in the UK.
• Government statistics show a low volume of proven and upheld cases.
• The system leads to trauma and lack of understanding among claimants, leading to delayed evidence presentation.
• Poor legal advice and trauma can lead to rejection of asylum claims.
• A Home Office list of legal aid providers exists but is not published.
• Legal aid funding cuts have affected access to quality advice.
• Asylum seekers often change solicitors due to relocation by the Home Office.
• Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 mandates safeguarding children's welfare.
• Children make up nearly a quarter (23%) of asylum claims.
• Amendments 36 and 37 address the evidence notice requirements for asylum claims.
• Clause 16 requires claimants to provide evidence before a specified date, with allowance for late provision if good reasons exist.
• Clauses 17 and 23 work in parallel with clause 16 to allow decision makers discretion on individual cases.
• Amendment 153 aims to prevent the Secretary of State from serving an evidence notice on certain categories of vulnerable individuals.
• The Committee divided over the amendment, with 7 votes in favor (Ayes) and 9 against (Noes).
• The amendment was negatived after the vote.
• Amendment 27 would change 'requiring' to 'requesting' for evidence notices.
• Amendment 28 would remove the obligation for applicants to provide supporting information by replacing 'must' with 'may'.
• Amendment 40 aims to replace 'requiring' with 'requesting' in priority removal notices.
• Clause 17 extends the arbitrary use of evidence in appeals established by clause 16.
• In the year up to March 2021, 47% of asylum appeals were successful.
• Gloria's case illustrates how trauma and lack of legal aid can prevent credible claims from being made within arbitrary deadlines.
• Amendment 39 would render Clause 17 inoperable.
• Clause 17 introduces two new behaviors into Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
• Decision makers must consider egregious conduct by claimants but are not prescriptive about how credibility should be assessed.
• The PRN will require individuals to provide information on modern slavery or trafficking claims by a specified deadline.
• Factors leading to issuance of a PRN include previous protection or human rights claims.
• Information provided after the cut-off date without good reason may damage credibility.